Eye Examinations

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they are doing to make the public aware of diagnostic health benefits of eye examinations, including general health prognosis.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, last year some 16 million people had their sight tested. However, still too few people appreciate the benefits of the eye examination that optometrists carry out to identify early potential eye disease. The department is discussing with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and representatives of the optical professions how we can better get that message across. We hope to make some significant changes before long.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that when your Lordships' House debated the question of free eye examinations—we voted some years ago in favour of retaining them—we passed, on the same day, provisions relating to the possibility of allowing people to buy spectacles over the counter. Those two matters were related. It was never intended that being able to buy spectacles over the counter would deter people from having the health benefits of an eye check. Does he agree that it is important for people to be assessed for eye conditions and that an optometrist can see, through the eye—which is the window—possible hypertension due to arteriosclerosis and also the possibility of strokes? Is it not a fact that much wider health diagnostic benefits can now be achieved through eye examinations?

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords. I agree with the noble Baroness not only that skilled eye examinations can identify other non-eye-related potential diseases but also that the early diagnosis of a range of other—often age-related—eye diseases is crucial. I refer, for example, to the need to identify glaucoma and to the fact that some forms of eye disease are related to diabetes and to cataracts—all will be more curable the earlier that they are diagnosed. It is crucial to get the message across to 60 year-olds and above that regular eye tests are necessary not just because those tests may establish whether a person's sight is failing but because they will identify at an early stage other health deficiencies.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in light of the Minister's remarks, is it not essential that free eye tests are made available to all, not just to the young and the old? On a less serious note, what account is the Minister taking of the Harry Potter effect?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I fear that I am very much in danger of falling into the "High Court judge" syndrome, particularly in relation to the latter part of the noble Lord's question. On the first part of his question, we already give free eye tests to a substantial proportion of the population: to children, to those over 60—we introduced that provision in 1999—and to those with a certain income eligibility. For those who do not get the test for free, its cost, at an average of about £18, is unlikely to be a significant deterrent to getting one's eyes tested.
	On Harry Potter, I have been advised by my daughter to read the books. I will probably be better able to answer the noble Lord's question when I have done so.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister confident that it is sufficient to ask a driver just to tick a box that states that he or she can read a number plate at 25 yards? Will that ensure that we have good, safe drivers on the roads, whatever the age of the applicant?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, people aged 70 and above have to go further than she suggested—they have to demonstrate in a range of tests that they are capable. If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall check my notes. My understanding is that at 70, everyone has to reapply for a driving licence and that when they do so they have to make a much more detailed statement about eye testing. If I am in error, I shall be pleased to write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Trumpington: Wrong!

Lord Filkin: Wrong, my Lords? All right—I stand humbly corrected.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the question of eye tests for those over 70 who want to drive has often been discussed in your Lordships' House? We have never been able to succeed in getting an amendment through, but we think that it is desirable to have a more objective assessment relating to eye tests. In relation to those who are over 70, does the Minister agree that extra administrative costs would not be involved because one has to reapply at that age in any case?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I relish reviewing our discussion of those points and shall reconsider them.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no standard sight screening in primary and secondary schools? What is he going to do about that, even if it means that we end up with lots of Harry Potters? I am sure that my children would be happy to be among them!

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking that question. We are concerned about the matter. It seems to us that screening to identify eye deficiency on school entry is important. That service has reduced during the past 10 or 15 years and the Government intend to look at how best to introduce screening for all children on entry to primary school. As regards later ages, the evidence and advice from the optical profession is less strong about its necessity. However, it would represent a significant movement if we introduced screening for all four or five year-olds on entry to school.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that Question Time is much more fun when the questions and answers are short?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that next week is national mouth cancer awareness week? Will he assure the public that he will take steps to ensure that the diagnostic benefits of a regular dental examination similarly apply to optical examinations?

Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, but we will consider it.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, in a previous answer, the Minister mentioned the connection between diabetes and sight problems. What is the likelihood of having in the near future a relatively cheap screening test for diabetes, in order to establish whether a person has the disease? That would undoubtedly make some inroads into the connected eye concerns.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, departmental policy currently is that people with diabetes should have their eyes tested at least once a year. With regard to the more specific screening methodology that the noble Viscount recommended, we shall investigate it and write to him.

Supreme Court

Lord Hooson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they would like to see progress towards a Supreme Court separate from the House of Lords, as advocated by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it is of course a singular arrangement for a Supreme Court to be housed in a House of Parliament; but it works. The contribution that the Law Lords make to our debates is highly appreciated. They chair various committees of this House. The Wakeham Royal Commission endorsed the continuance of their unique role, as do the Government in the White Paper of yesterday. In this country we have never applied a rigid doctrine of the separation of powers because we are pragmatists, not purists.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer. However, is it not of great importance that the matter was raised by the senior Law Lord? In view of that—the senior Law Lord is suggesting an important change in our constitution—is it not of supreme importance that the House should debate the matter properly? In light of the fact that the matter was raised at such a level, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his influence in the Government, ensure that an opportunity is given for a full debate on the subject?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has not misunderstood the senior Law Lord. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, has not, so far as I am aware, made any proposal in relation to the Law Lords' membership of this House. A new Supreme Court building of high architectural merit in the heart of London may be one of the most worthy of ambitions and is entertained by the senior Law Lord, but the Government have no plans for such a project.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as most people in this country seek justice in the existing courts, can my noble and learned friend tell the House whether he has any plans to improve services in the existing courts?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I plan or contemplate new court buildings, in various parts of the country, offering better facilities for victims and the disabled, not to mention much-needed improvements to the High Court in the Strand. New court buildings are planned for Sheffield, Bristol, Exeter and East Anglia and a new major court centre in the heart of Manchester is a strong gleam in my eye. I believe that all those matters are higher priorities than a new building for our Supreme Court.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, are supported by the Lord Chief Justice, by the Master of the Rolls and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, who last night devoted an after-dinner speech at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies to the subject? In those circumstances, perhaps the noble and learned Lord might reconsider allowing the matter to be debated.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am always influenced by what the higher judiciary say, either judicially or extra-judicially, but I have stated the Government's priorities.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has defended the current situation on the ground that it works. Will he use the same principle with regard to other matters in relation to your Lordships' House?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, our plans for the reform of your Lordships' House are to make it a better place and one which works better.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that a number of Law Lords take the view that it is inappropriate for them to take part in and to contribute to the debates? Does he further accept that there are serious constitutional issues in relation to this matter that need to be the subject of a proper debate, not only in this House but also in the wider community in this country?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I believe that these issues are widely debated in the country. They have also very recently been considered by a Royal Commission. Debates in this House are of course a matter for the usual channels.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend comment on the recent Denning Society lecture given by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, which touched on these matters?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, is not in his place. With respect to the noble Lord, I feel that he fell into a basic error in asserting that a Lord Chancellor can be non-political. If a Lord Chancellor were non-political, presumably he would not sit in the Cabinet, as the Cabinet is the political executive that takes political decisions collectively. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, also says that the Lord Chancellor should be in charge of non-political law reform. In fact, practically all our law reform has a strong political dimension. He said that the Lord Chancellor should continue to be responsible for the courts, but expenditure on the courts, as I indicated in my earlier answers, requires political priorities to be settled and the Lord Chancellor is accountable to Parliament for that expenditure. For once, I believe that the customary rigour of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, was lost.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the present somewhat anomalous system works simply because the Law Lords are very careful to avoid party politics and because, historically, Lord Chancellors have not been too party political themselves?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I recall very well the late and much loved Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, stomping the country during a general election when he was Lord Chancellor. As regards the Law Lords, the senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, has set out in this House the principles by which the Law Lords will take their individual decisions on whether to participate in our deliberations. I have often said that in debate in this House Law Lords should avoid—I am sure that they are prudent enough to do so—the appearance of expressing concluded views of a judicial character on issues that arise in legislation under debate so as to ensure that they do not thereby disqualify themselves from sitting.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble and learned friend for a post-prandial answer. How can the Law Lords ensure that their role in this Chamber does not run into conflict with their role as members, in effect, of our Supreme Court?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the Wakeham Commission made a recommendation on that subject. On 22nd June 2000, on behalf of all the Law Lords, the senior Law Lord made a statement in this House on the principles that the Law Lords would observe. That statement is to be found in Hansard of that day and I am not aware that his statement has subsequently been subject to any criticism at all.

Aviation Security

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will conduct an inquiry into measures necessary to prevent hijacking of passenger aircraft.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we already have measures in place to deter the hijacking of passenger aircraft. They were substantially enhanced on 11th September. An urgent and wide-ranging review of aviation security measures is under way which is looking at ways to improve aviation security including the methods used by the terrorist.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that the danger of hijacking sadly remains a great one for passengers on civilian aircraft? In the circumstances, will he ensure that everything is done to speed up the measures to which he has referred and to ensure the inclusion of three additional ones: first, the installation of CCTV on flight decks; secondly, the introduction of electronic passenger blacklisting; and thirdly, and most importantly, that on all appropriate flights British airlines should have "skymarshals" in the same way as certain other airlines do?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that there is a serious threat. Everything that can be done should be done. As I indicated, on 11th September measures were increased at British airports and in relation to aircraft in order to increase aviation security. For security reasons it would not be appropriate for me to say what the specific measures were. However, in addition a committee of officials has been set up which reports to the Home Secretary and it is looking urgently at what further measures should be introduced. It is considering all the measures referred to by the noble Lord and it will report as quickly as possible.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, first, can the Minister tell the House when he expects the Civil Aviation Authority to issue any guidance to the airlines? It is now two months since the dreadful incident and no guidance from the CAA has been given to the airlines on what steps they should take. Secondly, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware, from today the Government are to charge airlines for the cost of third-party, war and terrorism risks. That cost could be up to £50 million a year, which is a new revenue that the Government will receive. Will the noble and learned Lord consider altering some of the other charges that the Government levy on passengers so that the airlines do not suffer a loss of revenue in these very difficult times?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the issuance of guidance by the CAA, that body is independent. However, the CAA is involved in the working parties which are looking at a range of measures that can be introduced. We should do it as quickly as possible, but we should not rush into things that could cause more difficulties than initially we thought might be the case. As to charges, there are no immediate plans to review them.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, important as it is to attempt to defend each of the points at which terrorists may strike, one can never be totally effective? Does he also agree that it is at least as important, if not more so, to strike at the roots of terrorism from whence those attacks are organised?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with both parts of the question. We shall do all that we can to improve security. The noble Lord is right that one can never provide complete security. Of the greatest importance is to attack the roots of the terrorists who caused the events of 11th September.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that air travel is still one of the safest forms of transport and that he should do everything he can to encourage people to bear in mind the risks but realise that there are dangers in many other things that they do, particularly as regards other modes of transport?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, aviation is a very safe form of travel, but that is no reason not to continue to take measures and to do such investigations as are appropriate to ensure that safety improves even further.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend acknowledge that prior to 11th September the approach taken in civil aviation was that aircrew would obey the instructions of hijackers, calm the passengers, try to land the aircraft and allow negotiations to take place? Will my noble and learned friend also give an assurance to the House that since 11th September that kind of approach is being discouraged?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the matters that is being considered is the training to be given to aircrew in the light of the events of 11th September. The last thing in the world that I should do is to say how aircrew should behave in individual cases. The correct course is to look very carefully at the right approach and, once the matter has been properly thought through, give guidance.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that low-cost airlines, whose whole philosophy is based on cutting costs, will be required to observe security standards which are every bit as strict as those which apply to state carriers?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the requirements of aviation security both in relation to getting passengers on to aircraft and what happens when they are on board will be applied across the board. Of course different rules will apply to different aircraft as they are not all the same size, but the rules will apply to all airlines.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that when a passenger arrives at the home airport of my American wife, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for an internal US flight he must show photographic identity both at the check-in and the departure gate? Is the Minister also aware that at the said airport spot checks are made of suitcases to be loaded into the hold? Further, is my noble and learned friend aware that last month my luggage, which was going to Chicago, provided great fun to a young lady who sniffed all the bottles and looked at all the books, no doubt to discover whether among them was the autobiography of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific events at the airport described by my noble friend. However, I am aware that security measures have been substantially enhanced at all American airports following the attack on 11th September.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, do security checks include baggage handlers?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the matters that is being looked at by the team of officials is what checks need to be made on those who work right throughout the airport, in particular those who have access to restricted areas. That is a very important aspect of what is being looked at by the committee at the moment.

Millennium Dome

Lord Brougham and Vaux: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current timetable for the disposal of the Millennium Dome.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no firm timetable for the disposal of the Millennium Dome. The aim is to secure a sale as quickly as possible, consistent with value for money, securing a worthwhile and sustainable future for the Dome and a deliverable outcome. Ongoing market testing is exploring all avenues. On professional advice, we are in discussion with a small number of serious contenders. We announced this in July. To reveal details of the discussion would not be conducive to a successful conclusion.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that not unexpected Answer. I declare an interest in that I visited the Dome and admired the construction and design but found the content totally unimaginative. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how much taxpayers' money has been spent so far in maintaining the Dome? How much money has been paid so far to private consultants to test the market for the sale of the Dome? Will he give a guarantee that no further taxpayers' money will be put at risk? After all, the Prime Minister pledged that it would stand for decades as an example of British achievement. Can the Minister tell us what achievement?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, since 1st January 2001 the running costs incurred by English Partnerships have been £1.9 million. The running costs incurred by NMEC, the company that owned the Dome until quite recently, have been £2.1 million. In relation to decommissioning, £9.75 million has been incurred by EP and £6 million by NMEC. In terms of fees and costs for the sale process, from 15th February until the end of the year, the cost will be £1.7 million. As far as concerns those costs, some have been incurred by NMEC. That is money provided by the Millennium Commission and entrance fees. The rest has been provided by English Partnerships. That money will be recouped from the sale proceeds.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the sale process has been going on for nearly two years? Does he agree that the sale of the Dome has been marked by the same level of incompetence as was exhibited when the Dome was originally built and operated?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not agree. As far as concerns the sale process, we have acted at all stages on professional advice in relation to it. The professional advice at the moment is to test the market, which we have done, identify serious bidders and discuss with them the possible purchase of the Dome. That is the process we are following which we are advised will meet the aims that I set out in my original Answer. We are following that advice.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the regeneration in the area of the Dome continues and, thanks to the Dome, there are now some splendid houses for different types of people to buy and new medical services? Those who live in that area are delighted that the Dome is still there.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very much aware of that. As my noble friend will know, in addition to the area of the Dome the whole of the north Greenwich peninsula was decontaminated. To the south of the Dome is the Millennium Village, which has a number of houses, including affordable homes, a school and health centre. The people of Greenwich and the area are delighted that the Dome is there and wish it to stay.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we would not criticise him if he saved himself further embarrassment and just knocked down the Dome, despite the fact that the Dome stands as a shining monument—dare I say, beacon—to a massive government cock up?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Viscount will be aware that it was his party which decided to embark on the Dome. As I have said all along, I believe that the right thing to do is to see the project through and ensure that there is a sustainable future for the Dome which provides value for money and brings regenerative benefits to the area in which the Dome is built.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept, having spoken of skilled professional advice, that the art of life as well as politics is to know when and whether to accept such advice?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes. I am quite sure that the advice that the Government are receiving is of the highest quality and is the right advice to accept.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that he could learn something from his colleague in the Cabinet Mr Byers about the technique for putting businesses into receivership? The Dome is insolvent and has been since its inception. Why does he not face up to it?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Dome is not insolvent. As the noble Lord is aware, NMEC at all stages traded entirely solvently and paid all its creditors. We are now talking about what should be done with the Dome building. The building itself cannot be insolvent. We are looking at whether a future can be found for the Dome. I believe that it can.

Land Registration Bill [HL]

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Land Registration Bill [HL], have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.
	Clause 4 [When title must be registered]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 3, line 13, leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 13. I thank the Minister and her Bill team, together with the Land Registry, for taking the time to consider in some detail with us on these Benches a number of points which were unresolved to our satisfaction on Report.
	I turn to the amendments. After much discussion and thought we have decided to revisit the term of leases that must be registered. It was raised both in Committee and on Report. The minimum term of lease that currently must be registered is 21 years. The Bill as currently drafted will reduce the term to seven years. It is our view that, in consideration of the adjustment required and the practical implications for both the Land Registry and for conveyancers, the Government should rethink that sharp reduction and strike a balance at 14 years, particularly given the contemporaneous introduction of the welcome feat of electronic conveyancing.
	Much has been said by the Minister about the Land Registry's ability to deliver. We know from discussions that that confidence is shared by representatives of the Land Registry. However, we do not share that degree of confidence, given the reality that almost all new electronic systems of size—particularly of this magnitude—endure setbacks. Often they need readjustment and a rethink as the systems develop.
	Therefore, limiting the number of leases which must be registered to those with a term of 14 years or more allows a more realistic chance for the Land Registry to implement electronic conveyancing and for conveyancers to adjust to it with minimal disruption and, it is to be hoped, a good deal of success.
	It is not our intention to be intransigent, nor inflexible. We can envisage, once the electronic system is working satisfactorily and the conveyancing world has adjusted to the change, reducing the term significantly. That said, it would be remiss of me to ignore those reasons in principle for limiting the number of leases which will have to be registered to no good purpose. After all, registration is carried out at the tenant's expense. He pays both the Land Registry fees and the professional fees. Some of the leases in question will be of residential premises. That will therefore add to the cost of home ownership.
	The majority will probably be of business premises. That cost will become an additional overhead which adds nothing to the profitability or productivity of a business. It is yet another burden, particularly on small businesses.
	The Minister has informed us that the business community favours the proposed seven years. I must respond by saying that those in the business community whom I have contacted and spoken to within the past 24 hours, find that hard to fathom. Financial transparency of commercial transactions is suggested by the Government as a reason. However, I have yet to meet a businessman or woman, at least not one who remains in business, who is not capable and who does not make it a priority to know the commercial property marketplace. They do not need the helping hand of the Land Registry for that.
	We have laboured this point at each stage of the Bill. I make no apology for that. It is an issue that matters very much to a great many people. I urge the Government to reconsider their position. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has rightly said, we have already discussed extensively similar amendments both in Committee and on Report.
	In relation to e-conveyancing, the noble Baroness suggested that it will happen contemporaneously. It will not. The reduction in leases will take effect in all probability in 2003. Electronic conveyancing needs rather more discussion with the profession and would follow at least three or maybe four years after.
	The advantages of registration for conveyancers and consumers are well known and, I think, to date have been unchallenged. Extending registration will make the market more transparent. The lack of reliable information on leases, and in particular on short leases, prompted the Government to be cautious about accepting the economic and commercial arguments for making all leases over three years registrable at once.
	In the financial years 1999-2000 and 1998-1999, the Stamp Office stamped some 75,000 and 100,000 new leases respectively. The overwhelming majority are already registrable. But 9,000 and 12,000 were for between 14 and 20 years, and 11,000 and 17,000 for between seven and 13 years. So the Land Registry can expect between 20,000 and 40,000 or so new leases from the proposals in the Bill, plus assignments of extant unregistered leases where the unexpired residue exceeds the relevant minimum. Figures on lease length from the investment property databank are of the same order.
	The figures should be seen in the context of the overall workload. In 1999, the Land Registry received over 3 million applications to change the register following a dealing with the whole or part of a registered estate, and 373,000 first registrations.
	It is against that background that I have been assured by the chief land registrar that the Land Registry could, without detriment to its other services and without electronic conveyancing, be prepared to register all leases of seven years or more by the time the Bill is implemented.
	The Stamp Office recorded some 4,000 leases of seven years or less in 1999-2000. The Land Registry currently believes that it would be able to accept these for registration within a comparatively short period of the Bill's implementation. That helpfully suggests that a further reduction in the length of registrable leases should be feasible relatively soon, although it is wise to be cautious about that. Early reduction would be desirable because it must be a nuisance and an inconvenience for conveyancers to have to deal with two streams on leases, involving registered and unregistered leases. The shorter that period of dual running is, the better.
	In view of these figures, and the chief land registrar's unequivocal assurance, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. We understand the concerns that she has expressed, but regrettably we do not find them to be well founded.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The Minister knows that I am disappointed because, as she made clear in Committee, during consultation not one voice was heard as to where the dividing line should be. We have had a great deal of discussion with the Law Society. It has a very different view on this issue. It will be its members who will have to work with the Land Registry. As we all know, the Law Society represents the bulk of solicitors in this country. Therefore, it represents the vast majority of conveyancers. It should be stated that, although its working party, which was set up initially to consider the draft Bill, was made aware of the Government's proposals to reduce the term of years from 21, it was not at any time thereafter consulted as to the exact term, or the sort of term, that its members would think advisable or practicable. That is surprising and disappointing. We understand and appreciate the confidence that the Land Registry holds and I accept what the Minister has said about the time-frame within which the new arrangement will commence, before e-conveyancing is implemented. In the scheme of things, however, I think that three to four years is a fairly short term in relation to the enormity of the task ahead.
	The Minister has endeavoured to persuade and reassure us that the amendment is not necessary. However, I am afraid that I am not persuaded and would like to test the opinion of the House.
	3.41 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 132.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Right to lodge]:
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Dispositions required to be registered]:
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
	Clause 80 [Compulsory registration of grants out of demesne land]:
	[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
	Clause 82 [Escheat etc]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 29, line 28, leave out "the effect of"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 to 20. They are all drafting amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 15 correct Clause 82 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 respectively. The intention is that the rules to be made under Clause 82(1) may provide for determination of a freehold estate to be dependent on the meeting of registration requirements rather than for the effect of determination to be so dependent. The remaining four government amendments are of greater substance and bring the procedures for restraint orders in four criminal statutes into line with the Bill.
	Where a restraint order is made under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, the Terrorism Act 2000 or the International Criminal Courts Act 2001, and it affects registered land, it can currently be protected by means of a caution against dealings or, if the situation warrants, an inhibition. The Bill abolishes cautions against dealings and inhibitions. As restraint orders under the statutes affected prohibit dealings with the land, the appropriate mechanism under the Bill will be a restriction. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 91 [Electronic dispositions: formalities]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 33, line 15, after "certified," insert—
	"( ) each electronic signature was made by, or with the authority of, the person whose signature it purports to be,"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the amendment is designed to encourage the Minister to reassure conveyancers of their position in regard to electronic signatures where the signature is misused.
	The system needs to be secure to retain the confidence not only of the public in their house-buying processes but of commercial enterprises and inward investors buying factories and offices in England and Wales. Therefore, individuals, firms and companies should not be liable where authority was not given.
	There are no available secure operating systems for personal computers, and the security risks to which they are vulnerable are notorious. The risk of surreptitious copying of security information from a personal computer, or its subversion to carry out transactions other than those apparent to, and intended by, the user, are risks which firms of solicitors are in no position either to eliminate or to bear.
	For these reasons, we would regard it as unacceptable for conveyancers to carry the risk of their electronic signature keys being obtained and misused by third parties. The use of presumptions in statutory terms and their contractual equivalents should, in our view, be ruled out by clear statutory language, as we have proposed, the effect of which should be that it is for the relying party to prove that a disputed signature was made by, or with the authority of, the purported signatory.
	If technology is developed which can effectively eliminate the risk of the user being impersonated, then relying parties will find their burden of proof easy to discharge. We believe that currently available technology is very far from succeeding in this objective, even having regard to proposals for the use of smart cards or biometric identifiers. Relying parties face real risks in accepting electronic signatures, which may amount to undetectable forgeries, but it would be wrong as a matter of policy to allow them to solve the problem by transferring the risk to purported signatories.
	Where relying parties are major institutions, such as the Land Registry, other government agencies or financial institutions, they are far better placed than firms of solicitors and licensed conveyancers to promote the development of technology to eliminate the risks. That is a further reason for ensuring that they continue to carry those risks.
	In essence, will the Government reassure us today that, in the event there is a mistake on the Land Registry as a result of the misuse of an electronic signature, the Land Registry will indemnify the solicitor or licensed conveyancer against the losses incurred as a result of that mistake, and that the right to recourse will not be pursued by the Land Registry against the solicitor or licensed conveyancer concerned unless they are at fault? Further, can the Minister confirm that the onus of proof would be on the Land Registry to show fault? I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed about the possible consequences of unauthorised misuse of electronic signatures, which is the issue that lies behind the amendment.
	Two aspects need to be considered. First, if a transaction were completed and registered on the basis of an unauthorised electronic document, there could be grounds for rectification of the register and for indemnity from the Land Registry for the victim. Secondly, a conveyancer who has acted in accordance with the arrangements for access to the network, and who has taken the sensible steps needed to preserve the system's security, should not bear the liability for harm caused by careless, malicious or criminal action taken by others. I am very happy to give the reassurance that the noble Baroness seeks.
	These practices are no more than the application to electronic transactions of established principles that already apply to transactions in paper form. Under the present law and under this Bill, where indemnity is paid, the Land Registry has rights of recourse analogous to rights of subrogation against the wrongdoer. When the then Land Registration Bill was passing through the House in November 1996, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—who, regrettably, is no longer in her place—said on behalf of the then government that,
	"it is neither the practice nor the intention of HM Land Registry to resort to its rights of recourse against those who are neither fraudulent nor negligent. It"—
	that is the power of recourse—
	"is a power that will continue to be used only in bad cases".—[Official Report, 18/11/96; col. 1166.]
	This practice will continue.
	That Bill became the Land Registration Act 1997. I am happy to confirm that the principles which have guided the Land Registry in relation to the paper system will continue to operate in the new world of electronic conveyancing.
	In particular, the Land Registry also accepts that the burden lies with it to satisfy itself that there has indeed been a "bad case" of fraud or negligence before seeking recourse against a conveyancer. The proper security precautions that will be needed when electronic conveyancing is introduced will have to be discussed with conveyancers and their professional bodies when drafting the network access agreements, which will also have to be approved by Parliament.
	I have repeatedly made it clear that the Government are determined to work with stakeholders to develop robust and secure electronic conveyancing systems. But having said that, I do not believe that the amendment is either timely or necessary. It is untimely because the details of electronic conveyancing and electronic signatures have not yet been worked out. Only the most generic conditions should be included in Clause 91(3). It is unnecessary because, if such a condition were to prove necessary—which I doubt—it could be added under the rule-making power in Clause 91(3)(d). I hope that in the light of my reassurance and the comments that I have made the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full and reassuring response. I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I beg leave to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 46, line 10, leave out from "occupation" to end of line 11.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14.
	These amendments were debated at some length in Committee and again on Report. Again, after much thought and discussion, we want to urge the Minister to reconsider this point.
	A person in actual occupation of land who possesses an interest under a trust of land is entitled by virtue of his occupation to protection in respect of that interest. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 and paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 3 withhold that protection if the person in actual occupation is entitled to an interest under a strict settlement. When we moved the amendment in Committee and on Report, we saw no justification for the discriminatory treatment of the beneficiary under the strict settlement, and we see none now.
	We accept that under the existing legislation interests under strict settlements do not constitute overriding interests. But, as the Law Commission points out in paragraph 2.69 of its Third Report on Land Registration of 1987, the distinction in the treatment of beneficiaries under strict settlements and beneficiaries under trusts for sale—now trusts of land—was probably unintended and was in principle unjustifiable. In the recent consultative document (at paragraph 5.63) the Law Commission and the Land Registry both "readily accept" that rights under strict settlement should be capable of existing as overriding interests. We agree wholeheartedly with that view.
	As I said on Report, there is a further important consideration to which the Law Commission adverts in its 1987 report. The strict settlement was the classical type of landed settlement designed to preserve family estates from generation to generation, and in this context the need to protect the beneficial interest of persons in actual occupation will seldom, if ever, arise.
	However, one of the consequences of the 1925 legislation—one that was not appreciated at the time—has been the unintentional and informal creation of strict settlements in circumstances where the machinery of the Settled Land Act 1925 is inappropriate and often not properly implemented. It is in this context that the exclusion of beneficiaries under strict settlements who are in actual occupation of land is capable of operating unjustly.
	I make no apology for adopting an example similar to the one that I used on Report. A widow entitled to a life interest in the former matrimonial home under the will of her husband will be entitled to protection if in actual occupation only if the property was subject to a "trust for sale". In the absence of this magic formula—which may well have been omitted in a home-made or informal will—the widow will be entitled to no protection. When she is evicted, it will be cold comfort to her to know that she is one of the "comparatively few people" who will be affected by the abandonment of the Law Commission's recommendation to extend the protection to persons in her position. The fact that a widow under a strict settlement unintentionally created by a home-made will is one of a diminishing band is not a good reason for depriving her of the protection that the law accords to someone with almost identical rights under a trust of land.
	At the risk of detaining the House further, perhaps I may offer a second example to amplify the point. A man of modest means whose main asset is an ex-council house bought under the right-to-buy legislation makes a home-made will stating: "I will give my house to my wife for her lifetime and after her death to my son and I appoint my son my executor". He dies before 1997, so there is an accidental strict settlement, and the son, without legal advice, and therefore without the error being spotted, takes a grant of probate and gets himself registered as proprietor without any restriction on his powers of disposition being entered. After the new land registration legislation comes into force, the son, living with his mother following a divorce, mortgages the property for an advance to start up a business. He tells the bank, "My father left me the house, but of course I let my mother stay there", and the bank accepts that—unwisely perhaps, but such things happen.
	Let us suppose that the son's business then goes bust, as so often happens, and the bank seeks possession with a view to selling the property. The mother would have been safe if the land had been held on trust for sale/trust of land, but as the Bill stands she has no defence to the possession claim, because her interest is under a Settled Land Act settlement, and her occupation of the property does not suffice to make it binding on the bank. A mortgage is more likely to create a serious problem than a sale, because even if the mother is not actually consulted on a proposal to sell, she will find out about it on completion and be able to do something then; whereas a mortgage may well not come to light until after the money has been lost and/or the son has absconded. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to make two brief points. First, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the substance of this matter. It seems to me that it is anomalous to treat beneficiaries under strict settlements governed by the Settled Land Act in a different way from beneficiaries under the trust for sale or, since 1997, the trust for land. I can see no justification for that. It would have been better if these passages had been omitted from the Bill.
	Secondly, I hope that the noble Baroness will not on this occasion divide the House. This is a Law Commission Bill and will undoubtedly improve land ownership and conveyancing. The problem that has arisen here is a fairly minor one. Although I hope that the Government will reconsider the point in the light of the arguments justifiably advanced—the Government will have an opportunity to do so before the Bill goes to another place—it does not seem appropriate for the Bill to be made the subject, on this particular issue, of a ping-pong between the two Houses. That is a view that I shall consistently take when we come to debate my own amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness for their comments. I understand the basis on which the amendment has been proposed. However, as the noble Lord rightly said, we had a good and full debate on the same amendment both in Committee and on Report.
	Our reasons for opposing the amendment may be summarised as follows. The Bill proceeds on the basis that there should be as few overriding interests as possible. The Law Commission and the Land Registry were prepared to consider an exception for such settlements. They put the proposal to consultation, and they received a large response. Many expert lawyers expressed their views. I believe I am correct in saying that, without exception, those who responded told us, quite sharply, that there was no purpose in making such an exception. The Bill as drafted reflects the outcome of that consultation. We took the consultative process very seriously. There is little point in having proper consultation if you do not listen to those with whom you consult. That is the first reason. One of the other aims of the Bill was to keep matters simple. The responses were acted upon.
	Thirdly, there appears to be no evidence that the present provision has ever caused any hardship in practice. We believe that this is a theoretical and not a practical or real problem. Our reasons are recorded in more detail at cols. 1328 and 1329 of Hansard of 30th October. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In essence, while we accept that this would affect only a few people and a diminishing group of people, we believe that nothing is to be lost by agreeing to the amendment. It is an anomaly which should be dealt with and we prefer it to be dealt with here and now. Far from anything being lost, there is something to be gained. There is no justification for discriminating against any person who may be affected by the proposal. Taking our first example, if it came to litigation the widow would have to demonstrate her title to the interest. The fact that she was in occupation under a strict settlement would then emerge. In other words, the fact that it is a strict settlement is bound to emerge in litigation.
	I understand that the Government have been in consultation on this and all other points. However, we on these Benches have also consulted extensively and have been given a very different point of view. There is a purpose in making an exception in this case. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says in supporting the amendment in spirit. I cannot understand why the Bill being drafted by the Law Commission makes it different from any other Bill which needs amendment. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 112.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Schedule 2 [Registrable dispositions: registration requirements]:
	[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
	Schedule 3 [Unregistered interests which override registered dispositions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
	Schedule 6 [Registration of adverse possessor]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 57, line 20, leave out "pursuance" and insert "pursuant"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 59, line 10, leave out paragraph 12.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the point I am making was, like some of the earlier ones, raised in Committee and again on Report. It was discussed again at a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, yesterday which I attended. I am afraid that that meeting convinced me more than ever that the Government had got this issue wrong. Mr Charles Harpum, the former Law Commissioner who was responsible for the Bill, is almost infallible on these issues. However, I believe that on this particular point even he, like Homer, has for once nodded.
	Let us assume that the owner of a house—let us call him Mr X—has a garden at the bottom of which there is a patch of derelict land. It lies derelict for some time and Mr X thinks that it would make a nice addition to his garden. Therefore, he takes it over. He knows that it is not his but no one else claims it. He plants up the land and after a few years he thinks that it would be nice to own it.
	Under the existing law, Mr X has the right to be registered as the owner of that formerly derelict land which he has incorporated into his garden if he has been in unchallenged adverse possession of it for 12 years. Under the existing law there is one exception to that situation; that is, where there is a trust of land. Under the present law that is quite appropriate as the person who owns the house to which the derelict land is properly attached may be a life beneficiary who perhaps does not even know that the land is his and does not want to do anything with it anyway and cannot be bothered to challenge the matter. Therefore, he takes no steps to end the adverse possession.
	Equally, the trustees, who are the legal owners of the formerly derelict land, may well not know of adverse possession of the derelict land by Mr X as they have no reason to look at the land and find out whether anyone has trespassed on it. In those circumstances I can see that it is unfair that a future beneficiary under the trust should lose the derelict land because of the failure of an earlier beneficiary to take action.
	However, under the Bill, the situation has now changed. Under the Bill, if X wants to get on the register as owner of the derelict land, he must give notice to the trustees. But he gets on to the register only if they fail to take action within two years, so that there can be no adverse possession against land which is owned by trustees without the knowledge of the trustees and without giving them an opportunity to challenge the claim by the person in possession. However, if paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 stands, the adverse possession may be excluded for a period of 80 years or more as trusts can and do last a long time. Indeed, in the case of a few statutory entails, they may last for ever. There is no reason that I can see why adverse possession should be deferred for a very long time when the trustee must be given notice of any claim by the adverse possessor. If the trustees are given notice and do not respond, and if paragraph 12 is allowed to stand, a difficult situation will arise. Does the Land Registry have to investigate the evidence of the beneficial interests before admitting the trespasser, Mr X, to the register, or does Mr X get registered only to find that the registration is a mistake and it is rectified against him simply because the property is held on trust?
	It was suggested in the discussion yesterday that the trustees might fail to oppose the application but might do so without being negligent or, alternatively, might be unable to pay damages to their beneficiary for failing to do their duty to oppose the application for registration. I do not believe that is an adequate excuse. There are extremely few cases where that will apply.
	In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, recounted what might be described as a "sob story" based on a child beneficiary who lost out because his or her mother, who was also the trustee of the estate that owns the asset, suffered from a severe mental breakdown. However, I think we are agreed that that particular story will not help the situation as such circumstances would be covered perfectly adequately by paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 which prevents adverse possession being claimed against a legal owner who is under a disability.
	Of course, adverse possession is not something to be encouraged, but I believe that paragraph 12 creates an unjustifiable anomaly. In the light of the change in the law of adverse possession in the Bill, which will perfectly properly make adverse possession more difficult to achieve, I can see no possible logical reason why the right to acquire title against the legal owner should depend on the nature of the beneficial interests on which a legal owner holds a property.
	I should say in conclusion that those who are most likely to benefit from paragraph 12 are the owners of large landed estates, because it is they who most often find that the property is held in trusts. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is refreshing to see such unanimity between noble Lords opposite. We have already discussed the amendment extensively in Committee and on Report and I am very sorry that the noble Lord has not been persuaded, not least because of the strenuous efforts made by Mr Harpum, the Land Registry and the Bill team, as well as my meagre efforts on this issue. My powers of advocacy and theirs are not sufficiently great to persuade the noble Lord.
	I regret to say that the Government have rather less sympathy with Mr X in the example than does the noble Lord. The aim of the Bill is to reduce the scope for deliberate land theft, which is what the noble Lord has described. The Government do not believe that it should be made easier than it is under the current law.
	The Bill is a work of root and branch modernisation. The Government would not willingly pass up any opportunity to make the law simpler or more up to date, but we consider that the amendment would be unfair to beneficiaries who are not entitled to possession. The reasons are fully explained at cols. 1381-82 of Hansard of 30th October. I cannot usefully add anything to what I said last time, save to express regret that in my example I thought to say that the mother in that distressing situation was suffering from some disability. If she had not been, my example would have been impenetrable.
	In the light of what I have said, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I egged the pudding in my example and, with the greatest respect, I think that the noble Lord may be engaging in the same today.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry that, even at the last gasp, I have been unable to persuade the Government to change their mind. I propose to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, not because I am in any way convinced that I was wrong, but for the reasons that I gave when speaking to the previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 20:
	Page 73, line 21, at end insert ", and
	(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
	Page 77, line 33, at end insert ", and
	(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
	Page 78, line 39, at end insert ", and
	(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
	Page 79, line 11, at end insert ", and
	(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	An amendment (privilege) made.
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Community and its Member States (The Cotonou Agreement)) Order 2001

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Community and its Member States (The Cotonou Agreement)) Order 2001, which was laid before this house on 15th October 2001, be approved.
	The European Community, as the world's largest multilateral grant provider, the world's largest single market and the main trading partner of most developing countries, can potentially make a huge contribution to eradicating global poverty. In the past, the EC has not fulfilled that potential, but the new Cotonou agreement between the European Union and the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific—the ACP—is a landmark.
	The EU's negotiating mandate for Cotonou was agreed during the British EU presidency in 1998. Negotiations with the ACP started in the same year and were concluded in 2000. Negotiations were hard, but the Government have been successful in ensuring that the Cotonou agreement is a good agreement for the ACP. The main points of the agreement are: an over-riding objective of poverty elimination; improved and simplified development assistance under the European Development Fund; good governance underpinning the new agreement and the possibility of taking action in cases of severe corruption; a new trade deal, which maximises ACP access to the EU market while promoting those countries' gradual integration into the global economy; and, in exchange for these improvements, an ample replenishment of the EDF.
	The trade aspects are important because, in many cases, the impact of the EU's trade relations exceeds that of its development assistance. Under Cotonou, the ACP's current preferential arrangements will be maintained until 2008, after which new WTO-compatible arrangements will come into effect. These will be free trade agreements between groups of ACP countries and the EU. However, to allow ACP countries time to adjust, fully reciprocal free trade would not be expected until up to 20 years from now.
	One of the Government's main concerns in the negotiations was those countries that will not be able to join free trade areas in 2008. Here the Government secured two important objectives. First, least developed countries will benefit from the commitment to allow duty free access for essentially all their products. This has now been implemented with the "Everything But Arms" decision this year. Secondly, there is a safety net for other developing countries, with the EU undertaking to do what it can to provide a new, WTO-compatible trading framework with benefits equivalent to Lomé.
	While the improvements to the Community's development assistance under Cotonou are welcome, they need to be accompanied by substantial reform. The Commission has started to tackle many of the institutional weaknesses of the past. Since Cotonou was signed last year some important improvements have been made. The challenge now is to ensure that the reforms are fully implemented, while also continuing to press for wider positive change.
	Together with the Commission reforms, Cotonou is an important step towards ensuring that the European Community can meet its potential contribution to the millennium development goals. I therefore commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House some estimate of the costs to the various Community secretariats that are bound at some stage to be involved in taking further legal advice, establishing a budget line and determining how the expenditure should be apportioned? It would be most helpful if we could be satisfied that all those precautions have been taken care of and that any transactions that arise from it are thoroughly transparent, not buried away in some obscure section of the European budget, which very few people read.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the House today. We on these Benches welcome the principle of extending the Lomé Convention to the Cotonou agreement and have no serious concerns about the content of the order. Much of its content is to be welcomed.
	We are delighted, too, to hear the Minister acknowledge that a great deal of work still needs to be done to reform the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. This is all the more important as we come to the legislation regarding the enlargement of the European Union. We have pressed for such work for a long time, and we hope that the Government will make greater efforts to speed up the necessary reforms.
	We have one or two specific worries on which I wonder whether the Government could comment. I am pleased that the Minister applauded the incorporation in the agreement of anti-corruption measures given that, despite our repeated efforts on these Benches, the Government have consistently failed to incorporate such measures into the International Development Bill. Could the Minister comment on the inconsistency between the praise for Article 33(2), which states,
	"The Parties shall work together in the fight against bribery and corruption in all their societies",
	and the Government's consistent refusal to accept our amendments to the International Development Bill to introduce anti-corruption provisions? Perhaps it will be incorporated when the Bill goes through the other place. I wonder whether that is possible.
	The decisions that the Doha World Trade Organisation meeting will take later this week will have profound implications for the well-being of the poorest people on earth. Trade is the engine of economic growth. Cotonou on its own is not enough. We need to reduce trade barriers. It is often said that both the European Union and the United States are the main stumbling blocks; the United States with their anti-dumping laws and the European Union with their environmental demands. Both are detrimental for the developing countries. Many even call it protectionism through the back door.
	One of the main ways out of poverty, however, for these countries still remains—and I repeat it yet again—and that is to give the children a chance of better education.
	As regards the effect of trading arrangements on the least developed countries—the Government's "Everything But Arms" initiative had advanced the timing of certain proposals—is the Minister aware that the proposals have caused enormous concern in relation to sugar, particularly in the least developed countries of the Caribbean? Many of the proposals which the Government intended to agree to could destroy the economies of several Caribbean islands.
	I do not want my comments to be interpreted as an overall criticism of this worthwhile agreement. The very important work of my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey on Lomé some 10 years ago, needs to be updated, especially as one-third of our aid to these areas is through the European Union.
	There has been a great deal of cross-party agreement on the need to improve relations between the European Union and the ACP countries. We hope that the work will continue. As long as our concerns for the reforms of the CAP and the CFP are taken into account and the needs of Caribbean countries in relation to sugar and issues such as the recent problem with bananas, which the Minister mentioned in the other place, the agreement should provide a worthwhile framework for future relations. We therefore support this order.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we also support this order and welcome the focus of Cotonou on the alleviation and elimination of poverty. A great many of the issues which have been raise by Cotonou will be directly affected by what takes place at Doha. One area which is causing some degree of concern has been mentioned in the press. It is that developing countries believe that they are being excluded from some of the decision making that is taking place. They believe that the developing countries are forming a club which will further the position of the developed world rather than that of the developing countries.
	I have one question concerning the order. Have the Government looked closely at how to develop one of the issues raised by Cotonou, which is the non-state sectors, and have the Government thought about how NGOs, for example, can be included in future negotiations?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for their support for this order. I believe that the focus on poverty in the Cotonou Agreement is particularly important. I shall try to address each of the questions raised in turn.
	My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington asked about cost estimates. I can assure him that Cotonou is not funded from the budget, but it will be administered using normal Commission procedures and capacities. In that regard I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to learn that we have been working very hard to improve the procedures in respect of EU aid. A streamlined implementation structure has been established in Brussels. But completing the reorganisation overseas will take several years. We have also been looking at management systems and procedures which have begun to improve. For example, a new framework for country strategies and simplified procurement procedures have been put in place. I know that my noble friend is often very concerned about bureaucracy within Brussels.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked me in particular about corruption. That matter was raised in our discussions on the International Development Bill and again yesterday in another place at the Bill's Second Reading. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development said, in response to a question from the Opposition,
	"The hon Lady will know that the Queen's Speech contained a commitment to legislate to ensure that British law does not put implementation of the convention [on corruption] in doubt".—[Official Report, Commons,7/11/01; col. 288.]
	That remains our position.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the CAP. I confirm that the Government are working to secure fundamental reform of that policy so that it moves away from subsidies which encourage excessive production and towards those that support rural development and the environment. It is especially important for the development objectives of the United Kingdom that reform is achieved as soon as possible.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the "Everything But Arms" initiative. The Government believe that that is important to help the world's poorest countries. But we also recognise that non-LDC ACP countries will need to adjust to the change, as the noble Baroness so rightly said, particularly in their production of sugar and rice. We shall work to ensure that the multilateral and other bilateral donors assist with the costs of adjustment including through the Cotonou arrangements.
	As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the WTO, we continue to believe that the launch of a new multilateral round would result in significant benefits for developing countries. The noble Lord may be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a package of £20 million in assistance to developing countries to help them to use the round to negotiate effectively as part of our commitment to the development round. We are working very hard to improve the participation of LDCs in the WTO through our capacity building projects.
	The final question from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, concerned the role of non-state actors. As the noble Lord said, the new agreement provides an enhanced role for non-state actors. They should be consulted on the EC's country support strategies and involved in their implementation. They should also receive capacity-building support. We are committed to ensuring that that happens, because it is vital if non-state actors from the ACP who represent all of society are to play a full role.
	I hope that, with those explanations, we may proceed with the order. I commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Jobcentres Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001

Earl Russell: rose to move, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the regulations (S.I. 2001/3210) laid before the House on 26th September and to lay amended regulations which insert the words "or death bed" after the word "funeral" in Regulation 13(h).

Earl Russell: My Lords, there are two Motions on the Order Paper—one Motion to resolve and one Prayer to annul the regulations. I hasten to reassure the House that I propose to make only one speech—unless the Minister positively wants more. E.M. Forster was quite right: it is the tragedy of life that one gets what one wants. However, for the moment, I propose to make only one speech.
	The regulations introduce compulsory work-focused interviews for those who claim incapacity benefit and several other medical-related benefits. I shall deal first with the Motion, because it deals with a limited point and is simple and, I hope, clear. It addresses regulation 13(h). That regulation sets out what shall be taken as good cause for not attending a work-focused interview. Properly, the regulations provide for attending a funeral being good cause for not attending an interview. I propose to add, after funeral, the words "or death bed".
	That is not a fanciful example; it is based on an actual case discovered by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and included in its report, "Benefits and Work", published by Janet Albeson in 1997. The case concerned a woman whose husband was dying of a brain haemorrhage. She spent a week in hospital attending his death bed and was deprived of jobseeker's allowance on the grounds that she was not actively seeking work because she had not made a job application during that period. I am not especially surprised that she had not.
	I do not believe that that was the intention behind the legislation. I do not believe that it is the intention of this Government. I do not believe that it was the intention of their predecessors, Mr Portillo and Mr Lilley, who introduced the Jobseekers Act 1995. I am open to correction, but I believe that that is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In that case, it led to a particularly harsh application, which I hope will not happen again.
	When the report was published, the case was still subject to appeal. I have not been able to discover what happened since, but, as the Minister well knows, one loses benefit pending appeal. As one cannot hang one's stomach on a sky-hook, one suffers considerable hardship in the meantime. This is a case in which the Government could, without any loss of face—without even any change in policy—clarify their intention so as to avoid such hardship in future.
	If the present trend towards ever more secondary legislation continues, it will be necessary to deal with the question of how we deal with the one regulation that is not right among a group of others that are. The Motion is non-fatal: were it to be carried in a Division, it would not force the Government to do anything. However, I hope that the Government see fit to take the opportunity, which I offer them, to change something that has produced an injustice that I am convinced that they did not intend.
	The regulations give rise to wider issues. They have a good objective: to help people with disabilities into work where there is work that suits them. That objective is shared in all quarters of the House, but the Government are pursuing it with a wrong diagnosis and inappropriate means.
	Discussing these regulations in another place, Mr. Alistair Darling said:
	"The total case load of incapacity benefit is far too high".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/01; col. 473.]
	I have given the Minister's office notice—slightly belatedly, for which I apologise—that I should like to know: what is Mr. Darling's evidence for that proposition? As far as I can see, that is a matter of hypothesis.
	I suspect that the answer I shall receive will be, once again, a reference to how many people were referred to incapacity benefit before the 1995 Act. If I receive that answer, first, that is a long time ago. Many of those people may not now be of working age.
	Secondly—this is important for the whole of our discussion—we need to understand that the link between illness and unemployment is two way. Unemployment may well lead to illness as well as being a consequence of illness. That is fairly well universally medically accepted. It was originally proposed by the Black report and sustained by the Acheson report and a detailed analysis of unemployment and illness by constituency. The fact that constituencies with the highest unemployment have the most incapacity benefit may be perfectly well be evidence that despair is not good for health.
	We are all familiar with the phenomenon of an animal that pines when given no hope. I am not certain that human beings can claim to be any different. If the Secretary of State has any good reason for knowing something different, I should like to know it. The Secretary of State talks about history lessons, and says that if we are to have history lessons, let them be complete. I agree. The medical evidence should be included in that.
	The regulations will have the wrong effect: they will not get more people into work; they will not help people find work that they can do. If we consider what has happened under ONE—what used, in far-off days, to be called the single gateway—those who have attended compulsory interviews are less likely to be in work than those who have not. That is the finding of the Department of Social Security's research report No. 126. The department comments that that finding is not easy to explain. I hope that I can help. The finding is confirmed by the new deal for lone parents: again, those who have attended the compulsory interview are less likely to be in work than those who have not. We are dealing here with the effect of fear, which is a genuine medical phenomenon.
	Several conditions that result in people receiving incapacity benefit are objectively exacerbated by fear. Mental illness is frequently one; back pain is another; asthma is a third and irritable bowel and similar disorders are a fourth. If we make people frightened—we underestimate at our peril the extent to which contact with a bureaucracy bearing a big stick is likely to frighten claimants—we may worsen their health. Getting people with medical disadvantages to do what they are capable of doing depends heavily on making them feel safe.
	A long time ago, when my wife had had an operation on her knee, she was on crutches for two weeks. On the day on which she came off crutches, the hospital tested her, and asked her to walk along a straight line. The staff put on an expression of great alarm and said, "Something's wrong. You're not limping". When challenged, they explained that almost everyone who came off crutches limped out of habit because they were afraid of the risk of doing otherwise. That was a case where fear was not present. If we want to get more people with disabilities into work, we need to produce more cases such as that where fear is not present. In my opinion, compulsory interviews are approaching the matter in exactly the wrong way.
	The Minister will say, quite rightly, that home visits are available for those who find difficulty in going to a place to be tested. However, I agree with the remark made by Mrs Browning in another place that for many people, especially elderly people, home visits may be traumatic. In fact, my wife is dealing with one such case at the moment. It concerns a lady who will not let anyone into her house because she is not fit to clean it, and she dare not let anyone see what has happened to the house as a result. Consequently, all attempts at help must take place by telephone and that produces a great deal of extra work. I do not believe that that case is unique.
	The second reason why I believe that this is a mistaken approach is that it is a mistaken test. The Minister knows that the test for incapacity benefit works so badly that more people who are found unfit for work than are found fit for work actually obtain work. NACAB's report on the matter, An Unfit Test, is entirely to the point.
	When the test is conducted by the Government—that is, by the Benefits Agency Medical Service—rather than by the applicant's own doctor, there is a genuine possibility that there will be a conflict of interest. Before the Minister denies that, I shall ask her whether she can give me a categoric assurance that those who conduct the tests will not be subject to any targets whatever as to the number of people whom they find unfit for benefit and therefore fit for work.
	There are also considerable administrative problems in relation to the conduct of the test. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, was going to draw attention to that last Tuesday but he had other fish to fry. I know that the noble Lord has many fish to fry, but I hope that he will return to that fish because it needs frying. A great deal of trouble is caused in trying to carry out tests to a time limit. A great deal of trouble is also caused by doctors demanding fees for medical opinion from people on benefits. Those matters need to be put right before any more is done.
	In addition, are there jobs for those who are threatened with loss of benefit? Some of them do not get jobs because they face systematic discrimination. Others do not get them because, just as there are lands which God forgot, so there are lands which Mammon forgot. A good many of the people who claim incapacity benefit live in those lands. Mr Dennis Skinner in another place said—I paraphrase—that these provisions may work in some places but it is impossible to make them work here. That applies to many of the cases in which most people are on incapacity benefit. It brings us back to the link between unemployment and illness.
	I turn to my final point. Since yesterday, secondary legislation has become even more topical than usual. We are threatened with the possibility of being able to delay such legislation only for three months. But the trouble is that, if that comes about, the Government will be put under a constant temptation to bring in more and more provisions by secondary rather than by primary legislation. Originally we expected these regulations to be dealt with by primary legislation, but that did not happen. There is no clear dividing line about what is fit for secondary and what is fit for primary legislation.
	Nothing that I say should for one moment be taken to indicate any softening of my Benches' hostility to this proposal or of our determination to fight it to the very last gasp. However, should it go through under the Parliament Act, we would need as a companion to it legislation along the lines of the Donoughmore report of 1932, setting out limits as to what can be done by secondary legislation and what must require primary legislation. Whenever those limits are brought in, they must include depriving people of benefit.
	I am opposed to capital punishment. It is my opinion that depriving people totally of the means of subsistence is capable of becoming a form of capital punishment by the back door. I know that the Minister regards that opinion as hysterical, absurd and erroneous. It is possible that she is right. When she gives me one scrap of evidence in favour of her view to that effect, I shall give it every possible consideration. She has not yet done so. Meanwhile, I believe that we are facing a situation in which the power of secondary legislation is increasing, has increased and should be diminished. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the regulations (S.I. 2001/3210) laid before the House on 26th September and to lay amended regulations which insert the words "or death bed" after the word "funeral" in Regulation 13(h).—(Earl Russell.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I begin by taking up the point made by the noble Earl in his concluding remarks. In the Queen's Speech in June, the Government pledged to introduce a Bill to tighten up the rules for claimants of disability benefit. At that time, we were told that the benefit would be paid only for fixed periods and that we should expect a big increase in the number of medical tests. But, of course, we were expecting the matter to be dealt with in a Bill. Indeed, it was clear from what the Minister said back in July that she expected these matters to appear in a Bill. Of course, such a Bill would have been amendable and debatable in considerable detail.
	Instead of that, the matter before us is in the form of regulations. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, if the proposals put forward by the Government yesterday in relation to reforming your Lordships' House were to be carried out, we should no longer have the right to vote against secondary legislation; we should have only the power of delay. Personally, I regard that as a most serious matter. However, that is not the situation now.
	None the less, we on this side of the House have been very restrained in the extent to which we have voted against statutory instruments. Indeed, as the noble Baroness says, so was the party opposite when it was in opposition. It seems quite extraordinary that the Government should now come forward with this proposal when, in fact, the present measure is used only on matters of the very greatest importance.
	The situation surrounding the regulations that we are debating is somewhat strange. As I said, they were originally mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Subsequently, on 4th July, at a breakfast meeting the Secretary of State made a number of proposals which I believe suggested—certainly the spin which was reflected in the press suggested—that there would somehow be a crackdown on people who were obtaining disability benefit but had not been tested adequately to ensure that they were still entitled to that benefit.
	That caused a considerable and understandable uproar among many people concerned with these issues. The Prime Minister bowled in on the same afternoon in support of his Secretary of State, saying,
	"the proposals made today on incapacity benefit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are entirely sensible and justified. It cannot be right that we have a situation in which people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid on average about £4,000 a year for, say, 10, 15 or 20 years, with no one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/01; col. 254.]
	In contrast, the noble Baroness, speaking, I believe, on the same day, pointed out that there was no question of MoT tests being introduced and that incapacity benefit claimants already underwent a review process. Some faced checks after six months. I hope that the noble Baroness has drawn her remarks to the attention of the Prime Minister because I do not believe that the furore which he and the Secretary of State caused reflected the reality of the situation. As I understand it, and as the noble Baroness pointed out, the situation is that a fairly regular series of checks have been carried out so far as concerns entitlement to benefit. The matter then moved on and the Government, having decided on a crackdown, engaged in a series of climb-downs. My sound bite was not intentional. All the best sound bites are spontaneous.
	In a memorandum, the Secretary of State said that the regulations would not change the categories exempt from medical testing and would not result in claims being time-limited. So we moved to a situation where there would be a Bill covering these regulations. In July, we were then told that there would not be a Bill, it would be in regulations, in September that there would not be a fixed period and in October that there would be no additional medical tests. All we were left with was the compulsory work-focused interview that we are discussing today.
	I ask the noble Baroness what else will be in the welfare Bill in the circumstances I have described, or is there yet to be a welfare Bill of the kind mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
	The noble Earl raised important points concerning the detail of these regulations which, as the House knows, are not amendable. The noble Earl was particularly concerned in his other Motion—being debated with the main Motion—that the words "on death bed" should be inserted after the word "funeral". It should perhaps be the other way around. The good cause provision (regulation 13) sets out a range of issues to be taken into account in determining whether a person has shown good cause for failure to attend an interview. This is important because if they fail to show good cause, they will suffer considerable penalties. While the prelude to this clause says these are the things which should be included in the considerations, inevitably it will be the case that those operating the system will look down the list and say, "You don't qualify because you're not on the list".
	The Minister should make it clear to people operating this system that this list is not exclusive. It is possible to have other reasons why a person may be unable to attend an interview and there may be good cause why they are unable to do so. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the department's officials will be clear that this list in the regulations will not to be treated as the only reasons why good cause can be shown.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very happy to give that assurance. It is exemplary rather than fully inclusive.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful that the Minister will ensure that clear information is passed to those operating the regulations in what can be a fraught occasion for the applicant.
	I come to the matter of penalties. These are considerable. If the person fails to turn up, a sanction will be imposed such as the withdrawal of income support, incapacity benefit and, to my astonishment, in regulation 11, bereavement benefit. Is it really proposed that, if someone fails to turn up for a job interview, they will have a bereavement benefit sanction imposed? That is a very strange proposition.
	Before I turn to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, could the Minister confirm a statement made on 5th of July by Mr Robin Cook in another place, that the situation now being envisaged will not affect existing claimants?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance—but not from a sedentary position.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, thank you. The Minister's speech gets shorter by the minute.
	Finally, I turn to the lessons which can be derived from the ONE operation, originally known as the single gateway arrangement. The DSS' own report on the first effects seem to be disappointing. Only a minority of lone parents or sick and disabled clients opted to take part in the operation. In the pilot areas, respondents in the sick or disabled groups who had not taken part in ONE were more likely to be in work than participants. As the noble Earl pointed out, this finding is hard to explain. Perhaps they took part in the interview rather than finding employment.
	There are no changes in the attitude or behaviour of those already in part-time work. Personal advisers were able to change a few participants' attitude but this was an exception to the many who did not feel work was an option. I will not read out all the results—noble Lords will know of them—but it does seem to suggest that this is a disappointing result and raises the question of whether the compulsion set out in these regulations is justified by the results so far achieved.
	One point is unclear to me. In Schedule 1, there is a long list of postcodes subject to these regulations, plus Shropshire County Council and Telford & Wrekin District Council. Does this fill a gap in a previous pilot or is this a pilot area? Why will some places be covered by the regulations and others not? I have much sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Earl. I am glad he has provided the House with an opportunity to debate these matters as my noble friend, Mr Willetts, did in another place.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has made some interesting points to which, no doubt, my noble friend will respond.
	I do not know what the Minister thought of the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but he hit a large number of targets very accurately. I look forward to the Minister's reply. Some of the questions he posed were very relevant. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Government's attempts to help disabled people to find work. Those able and willing to work deserve employment.
	The Government's aim is a laudable one but very flawed. The paramount question we need to answer this evening is whether the Government are going the right way about it. We need to look first at fraud. I hope that there is not a hidden agenda, because the Office for National Statistics said that fraud involving incapacity benefit is non-existent, so we can put fraud entirely to one side.
	If that is the case, what do the Government hope to gain by compulsion? The intention is to compel severely disabled people to attend for interview. They are threatened that benefits will be cut or withdrawn if they do not attend. I cannot believe that that is the right way to go about business; to threaten and compel severely disabled people must be counterproductive. Will anyone find a job more quickly when they are under the Government's threat? I do not think so. Moreover, some people will be so frightened that they will not attend the interview. That means that they will lose their benefits, which will have disastrous results for poor severely disabled people. I am horrified by the suggested compulsion and threats.
	There is a popular misconception that many—perhaps most—disabled people in wheelchairs want to work. That is far from being the case; and only 5 per cent of disabled people are in wheelchairs. I admire those who want and who seek work. However, as the noble Earl pointed out, many severely disabled people are not in wheelchairs. He referred to people with mental health problems and discussed various categories. I add to those categories: people with severe heart disease, those with multiple sclerosis and those with rheumatoid arthritis. Fancy bulldozing them into a situation in which they feel at bay and are forced to attend for an interview. Bringing people to the home does not solve the problem because having an official visitor at a person's home, especially if that person has mental health problems, can be a very traumatic experience. Either way—compelling people to go out or insisting that a visitor sees them at home—the situation can be terrifying for disabled people, especially those suffering from mental health problems.
	Threatening those people to attend a compulsory interview involves a loss to everyone. It involves a loss to the disabled person, who will not necessarily take a job, and to the Government, who appear to be insensitive towards disabled people and to be brow-beating them. The objective is to help those people to get jobs. What is wrong with the voluntary system?
	Why cannot disabled people be invited to discuss the situation—and perhaps apply after that—with people who can help, advise and guide them? In that respect, the Government have advanced a constructive proposal. I am sure that many disabled people will warmly welcome that. The purpose of the interviews is excellent and the Government should be commended on the arrangement. However, the compulsory element is simply unacceptable.
	The Government's policy of exemptions—deferments and waivers—is not the answer because the situation is vague and indistinct. We do not know who gets waived. Who gets deferred? It is up to the local civil servants. If they are good people, that arrangement is fine and there will be no problem. But what if they are tough, intolerant or impatient people? The disabled person is in their hands. What the Government are going to do should be clearly in the public domain and the provisions should be mandatory. The Government should be frank and comprehensive in that regard. We need transparency of information in the public domain.
	There is another serious flaw in the proposals. If and when disabled people go for an interview, there may, as the noble Earl indicated when he quoted Dennis Skinner, be no jobs. What will happen then? The Government imply that jobs are available, but we know full well that in many areas of the country there is significant unemployment. The area that I represented as a Member of Parliament—Stoke-on-Trent—had terrible black spots. One may force, compel and bulldoze people to go for an interview, but there may on occasion be no jobs. That applies to many areas of Great Britain.
	Lay-offs are being announced every five minutes in the media. One cannot pick up a newspaper without reading that a few thousand people are being laid off here and that a few thousand people are being laid off there. With today's cut of 0.5 per cent, the Government are aware of the growing problem of unemployment, and they are trying to stimulate the economy. However, they intend to go ahead with their proposals, which will bulldoze severely disabled people. I simply do not think that that is on.
	I hope that my noble friend can persuade the Secretary of State, who is a very enlightened man, to stop this nonsense of compulsion and threats. We should be able to say that we have a fine scheme; if it is voluntary we can win in every way. If the Government want to disseminate information about the centres, they can do so in many ways because many means are at their disposal. They can use the very considerable disability network, which can contact millions of people. There is no problem telling people what the situation is or encouraging them to take part. If the Government do that, they will be well on the way to success.
	If, despite the eloquence of the noble Earl and of others, the Government bulldoze the proposal through Parliament (they probably will) and if they find that it is a disaster (I think that it will be) I can only hope that they will reconsider. If they do so at the last ditch, that will again be of benefit to themselves and disabled people. That is my plea. However, it may be too much to ask the Minister not to go ahead with the proposal and to drop the compulsory element.

Lord Layard: My Lords, my first point is that the aim of the regulations is clear—it is to ensure that all disabled people and everyone else who is on the benefits know which jobs are open to them. Most of the people concerned are not severely disabled.
	Secondly, no one will be forced to work. We should not muddy this issue with any other issue relating to tests; we are talking today not about tests but about the regulations. Their aim is simply to ensure that when people decide to claim benefit they make an informed choice about the alternatives that might be open to them. That seems to me to be eminent common sense. One could say in response to that argument that people should be free to choose whether to make an informed choice. In a sense, that is the issue that we need to discuss. I want to put two strong arguments in favour of the view that the proposed degree of compulsion is justified.
	The first argument is that people easily become over-pessimistic. I should imagine that nearly all of us know disabled people who have been saved from despair by friends who prodded them to see the potential that was in them. It often takes an outside jolt to get people to see that things are not as bad as they seem. Such arguments, incidentally, have been equally important in relation to the long-term unemployed, although we are not discussing that issue. We saw what effects efforts to mobilise the long-term unemployed have had on the level of long-term unemployment in this country. The first argument involves over-pessimism and the need for everyone to be well informed about reality.
	The second argument is that taxpayers' money is involved and that there is no sensible reason why conditions should not be attached, especially when the main beneficiaries are the class of clients themselves. It is very easy to take a defeatist view of the labour market. It has been said today that it can never offer much to whole classes of people. We used to take that view about the unemployed. We—many apparently well-informed people—used to say terrible things; we said that we were moving into a world involving the end of work, and so on.
	Instead, experience has shown that in those countries where serious efforts have been made to mobilise the unemployed, large falls in unemployment have occurred. That has been the experience in Denmark, Holland and Britain, while countries such as France and Germany, which have had a more defeatist attitude to such things and have not made these kinds of efforts to mobilise unemployed people and to confront them with the fact that the world has more possibilities than they may have thought, unemployment has been far more persistent. I believe that the time has come, in this country, to provide more help to the other groups that depend upon benefit, and that is the reason for the regulations.
	I also understand that no major disability group is objecting to these proposals. Perhaps the Minister can confirm the precise situation. Except perhaps in relation to the very severely disabled, I ask myself who is objecting to what appears to be a reasonable proposal. I believe that it is those who view these groups purely as victims.
	Fundamentally, this proposal is about a different view of life—a more complicated view. We must get away from the pure victim view of such groups of people. We must recognise that there is potential in many disabled people that they themselves may not have realised they had. We must also recognise that we are doing them a service by helping them to see what in them can be married to situations in the outside world. That is what these regulations are about, and it would be tragic if they did not come into force.

Lord Addington: My Lords, in response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, I hope that he is aware that in referring to the potential of disabled people one must always discount the lucky and the brilliant.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as always, I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made this evening. However, I did not always recognise the regulations—I hope noble Lords will take this in the spirit in which it is intended—from some of the speeches to which I have listened. As my noble friend Lord Layard suggested, I sometimes thought that noble Lords were suggesting that all we are doing is compelling disabled people into work.
	Perhaps I should state what these regulations concern and what they do not concern. They are about, first, extending and providing equality of access to the support available to help people into work, people who previously have been routinely denied that access; secondly, routinely writing off from work the 4 million people who claim benefits that are covered by these regulations; thirdly, ensuring security for those who cannot work; fourthly, treating people as individuals; and, fifthly, improving the service for those who visit the new, integrated Jobcentre Plus offices.
	My noble friend Lord Ashley is absolutely right that there is a belief that fraud is widespread. However, these regulations are not concerned with that; nor are they about changing the current medical testing arrangements; changing the current categories of cases exempt from medical testing; time-limiting benefits; or forcing people into work. I wholeheartedly believe, as my noble friend Lord Layard said, that they are about opportunity and not threat.
	These regulations provide for everyone of working age, not just disabled people, who makes a new or a repeat claim to income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance and other benefits at a Jobcentre Plus office from 22nd October to take part, where appropriate, in work-focussed interviews at the start of their claim, and periodically throughout their claim, as a condition of claiming and receiving benefit.
	We have always been clear that we must be sensitive to the different circumstances that people face. So there are provisions in these regulations to waive the interview where it would clearly be of no assistance; for example, when someone is very ill or severely disabled and has no prospect of being able to work.
	However, people exempt from medical testing—they amount to 25 per cent of IB claimants—will not have their interviews waived automatically. People cope with disabilities differently, and these regulations are about treating people as individuals, not as members of a category. All disabled people are entitled to help, information, advice, opportunities associated with rehabilitation, training, work and benefits. Blind people, for example, are exempt from personal capability assessment. They are automatically passported on to IB and yet 51 per cent of blind people are in work. Equally, some people with substantial learning difficulties can be exempt, and yet 24 per cent of such people already work.
	The noble Earl asked whether we were saying, as he appeared to indicate from the comments made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that the numbers on incapacity benefit were too high. My right honourable friend was not saying that people were wrongly coming onto the benefit. I repeat, as my noble friend Lord Ashley has said, that there is no evidence of fraud or impropriety, but I believe, as I am sure that my right honourable friend believes, that people stay on incapacity benefit longer than should be the case and longer than they themselves want because no one intervenes to get them the help and support that they want and need. That is why the Disability Rights Commission tells us that around 1 million disabled people, on disability benefit, are interested in work and many feel that they could work, with the right support, but currently that is not available. That is what my right honourable friend would say.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was aware that that was her view of the matter. Can she give the House any evidence for believing that that view of the matter is the correct view?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would certainly expect the members of the Disability Rights Commission, who have made that statement, to have the kind of expertise that I do not have—I suspect that the noble Earl also does not have such expertise—but all the evidence that is coming through the commission and the Employers Forum on Disability, and like, appears to support that contention.
	I am sure that the noble Earl will agree with this next point. Sickness, painful conditions and often mental health problems, rather than disability itself, are the main barriers to work. There is much evidence to show that disabled people, as my noble friend Lord Ashley has told the House on more than one occasion, particularly if they have an orthopaedic condition—not necessarily conditions associated with mental health or sickness—are often better attenders at work and more reliable performers in work than non-disabled people. Some of the sickness records of absences from work confirm that.
	We know that many disabled people could work if they were given the relevant work aids. In addition, any decision to take up the help that is available is for the individual to make. It would remain entirely voluntary. Of course, in practice many people exempt from medical testing will also have their interviews waived because of the seriousness of their illness; for example, someone with a severe mental illness, which significantly affects moods or behaviour and restricts social interaction, or someone with a severely deteriorating illness.
	The regulations also enable an interview to be postponed if it were not appropriate at the time; for example, when someone is distressed following a bereavement, at the death bed of a close relative or in hospital. Where it is appropriate for a person to attend an interview, it will normally take place at the local office. If that is inconvenient, it could take place at home. Taxi fares and so on will be made available and, of course, a friend may accompany a person to an interview or be present at an interview, as the letter makes clear. The letter is positive and helpful. I have copies here if any noble Lord would like to read it.
	A person will be given three opportunities to attend an interview. Their benefit will be affected only if, after all those safeguards, they fail to show good cause for non-attendance. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the list of good causes in regulation 13 is non-exhaustive—it is exemplary—as we cannot anticipate every eventuality.
	In the case of someone who failed to attend an interview and did not contact the office to defer it because, as in the case that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave, he or she was with a close relative who may have been in a coma following a car accident, that would be accepted as good cause. Normally, I would expect a person to inform the office that they could not attend the interview, in which case it would be deferred to a time when they could attend. If they did not inform the office until after the event, it would count as good cause.
	I regret the case mentioned by the noble Earl. That was one case in 1997. I read that report and did not find any other cases like that. It may be that it was an individual example of bad practice, which one sincerely regrets. Certainly, all the guidance and training of staff should ensure that such inappropriate behaviour does not continue. Based on our experience of one pilot and 15,000 cases, there have been only seven sanctions in the period April 2000 to September 2001. As noble Lords are aware, the sanction itself is very light.
	Behind this debate is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Layard; namely, whether such interviews, which are information-based, not work-based, should be compulsory. My noble friend Lord Ashley pleaded with his usual eloquence that they should be voluntary. They already are voluntary and do not work. I am a convert on the subject. Like my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, five years ago I favoured only voluntary interviews because of the very language and images of threat that my noble friend deplored. I no longer believe that. I believe that people do not know what they do not know and we have a duty of empowerment.
	Even John Stuart Mill—if I may bat this back to the noble Earl, Lord Russell—believed that compulsory education was a prerequisite for informed choice. The philosopher John Stuart Mill insisted that even in the most liberal states education was the prerequisite for choices to be made. For example, how many lone parents who are currently on income support know that if they go to work they will have a rollover of two weeks' benefit to help them bridge the gap? If they do not know that, of course they will be frightened to take risks; if they do, they are more confident when the time is right to enter work. I hope that the noble Earl shares my views.
	The success of these changes depends on Jobcentre Plus staff, which is why we have increased staffing. Staff have had elaborate training. With the help of the disability organisations, particular attention has been paid to disability awareness training. I hope, therefore, that those who receive that advice accept that it is tailored to their needs.
	I was asked about the schedule. The schedule identifies the 50 pathfinders and 39 work-focused offices in which the Benefits Agency and Employment Service have been integrated to offer the kind of interviews that we want. As they roll out so the regulations will be amended. These regulations provide that everyone should have a work-focused interview at least every three years. They do not change the current medical testing arrangements, the category of exempt cases or the arrangements for deciding whether someone is entitled to benefit. They do not time-limit benefit or force people into work. They make sure that at least every three years people receive the help that they need, including incidentally checking that they receive the full range of benefits. If someone is interested in work or rehabilitation and training we have a duty to help them, not write them off.
	We have opened the offices and are delivering a radically improved service. I have visited a couple of these superb offices. They are colourful, welcoming, comfortable and stylish. Small packets of biscuits and drinks are thrown in. Physically, they appear to be similar to the business section of some airport executive lounges that I have visited. I do not believe that that comparison is as wild as it may seem. I encourage noble Lords, including above all my noble friend, to visit them. They are the kinds of offices that I would wish every benefit claimant, client and customer to be able to experience. Nothing less than that is good enough. All of those offices are compliant with the DDA and have signing interpreters and material in Braille and audio-tape. Customers will be able to have appointments in one working day. One blind man was hugely complimentary about the new offices. He said that they had the most comfortable seats in which he had ever sat, and promptly fell asleep.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that these were fraught occasions. If he visits these offices and sees the rapport and relationship between staff and clients I do not believe that he will come away feeling that these are fraught occasions. They are positive, constructive, warm and helpful. People go away with the image of themselves and their capacity enhanced, which is what we want.
	We know that the majority of lone parents want to work; they tell us so. We believe, and the DRC tells us, that up to 1 million disabled people want to work. We want them to have the best possible physical environment, training staff and knowledge to make choices and enter work as and when they are ready to do so. It is precisely because we value the skills and contribution of lone parents and disabled people that we want to empower them to come into work as and when they are ready to do so, with knowledge about their benefit entitlement, back-to-work support and the "best buy" calculation. As a result, they and we shall benefit. I commend the regulations to the House.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply to my Motion. It does not give me everything for which I asked. I believe that it gives me everything which I could reasonably have expected, and I thank her very warmly for it. I also thank her for what she said just before she sat down about using the interviews to make sure that everyone gets the benefits to which they are entitled. That gave me very great pleasure.
	On the other hand, I believe that the Minister's quotation from John Stuart Mill was not very wisely chosen. In dealing with compulsion for education, Mill was discussing minors, and the kind of compulsion to which they may be subject has at all times been slightly different from that which is thought appropriate for adults.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl will realise that from 1870 onwards compulsory education was only up to the age of 12. Mill was writing at a time when there was no compulsory education even for children.

Earl Russell: My Lords, of course I realise that. I think that he was perfectly right in what he said. It does not follow, however, that one can deduce from it something which he did not say.
	I listened to the Minister's description of these regulations and the argument about not writing off people. I entirely accept that that is the Minister's intention. But there is a considerable disjunction between the Minister's intention and the effect of the measures that she is defending. I have read innumerable speeches by kings and Ministers—indeed, more speeches than I have had hot dinners—in which they set out that their intentions were entirely beneficent and they did not mean any of the evil consequences which people saw behind what they said. Sometimes they were right and sometimes wrong; in almost all cases I believe that they were sincere, but the sincerity is not in itself proof of truth.
	What these proposals do not understand is the extent of distrust of the bureaucratic machine felt among those who are, or have been, on benefit. They assume an awareness of their good intentions which is very definitely not there. If the Minister read something like the report of community care users on reactions to the benefits system she would find a large body of evidence for that proposal. I believe that that needs thought, because what is perceived is something other than the intention of the Minister.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try not to intervene again. I agree with a good deal of the comments of the noble Earl about the service that historically has been offered particularly by the Benefits Agency. That was precisely why I was delighted to see the integration with the Employment Service and the whole shift in emphasis on training, service and physical environment in the new Jobcentre Plus offices which are wonderful. Go and see them, because that is where the future lies.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful for those remarks. The Minister is doing her best, but if she is to be successful I believe that it will take 50 years. She must be realistic.
	The noble Lord, Lord Layard, whose intervention added considerably to the debate, talked about the need for a friendly jolt and people being easily over-pessimistic. That is true on certain occasions, but one must establish a relationship of trust before one does it. I remember a peculiarly idle pupil at the end of the first year who was about to be sent down. I told him that he could get a first if he thought it was worth bothering. To the utter astonishment of my colleagues—blow me down—he did. But if I had not spent a long time in gaining his trust, I would not have been able to attempt to do what I did. I do not think that, even with all the benevolence that the Minister is offering, the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency and the jobcentres will establish that in the near future.
	The noble Lord, Lord Layard, also had a good deal to say about labour market measures. He contrasted Denmark, Holland and Britain with France and Germany. There may be a good many other independent variables between those economies. I wonder about the question of coal. I know that there has been coal in Britain as well as in the other countries. But in the cases of Holland and Denmark, declining industries may in the past have been rather less prevalent. It is a question that we shall need to pursue outside the Chamber. But perhaps I may put on record that there may be more than one explanation of what the noble Lord has been saying.
	The noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Ashley of Stoke, are about as perfect a cross-section of expert opinion as one could ask for. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his point about regulation 11 and the bereavement benefit. It reminds me of the remarks of my late noble friend Lady Seear on the original Jobseekers Act, from which all this flows. She said that it would lead to people being asked to go direct from the graveside to the jobcentre. We thought then that that was a flight of fancy. So did she. It seems that it was not. I am sorry to hear it. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said everything he did, including a great deal that I wish I had said myself.
	I am not in the least satisfied by any of the answers that I have been given. But the question of what happens to regulations is a long-term one which stretches far wider than this issue. But I shall say only this. We cannot run a Parliament without a degree of consensus on the way we should proceed. That consensus does not exist at present. I hope in future it will. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell: had given notice of his intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 26th September, be annulled (S.I. 2001/3210).

Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not be moving the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2001

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th August be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if speak at the same time to the other three orders standing in my name: the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2001, which was laid before the House on 13th August 2001; the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was laid before the House on 26th September; and the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was also laid before the House on 26th September.
	The political context is well known to your Lordships. The then First Minister, the right honourable David Trimble, resigned on 1st July. That created automatically a deadline of 12th August. On the afternoon of Friday 10th August the Secretary of State announced that he would be signing an order to suspend devolution from midnight that night. That order was the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2001, which is the first order standing in my name today. The Secretary of State then restored the devolved institutions after 24 hours by signing the second order.
	The deadline was then reset for Saturday 22nd September. There were various developments and difficulties with which your Lordships are well familiar. The Secretary of State, after appropriate consultations, announced on 21st September that he was again bringing about a suspension by means of the third order. Devolution was restored 24 hours later by means of the fourth order.
	That is the historical background to these orders. I have taken them briefly because it is self-evident that your Lordships know what has happened. More recently, as your Lordships know, Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan have been elected as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The up-to-date material that I have is that the Reverend Dr Paisley returned to court this morning in Belfast and has been given leave to take out judicial review, but leave only on the basis that he has an arguable case. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th August be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we on these Benches understand the convoluted procedures which have been necessary to take the peace process forward. We support the Government.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, with these orders, let us hope that there will be an end to this kind of yo-yo politics. It was commendable that the Alliance Party took the decision to break the impasse. However, new arrangements must be made for the future to create a workable procedural arithmetic. We support the orders.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that last word. I entirely agree. The Secretary of State is bending his mind at the moment to new appropriate workable arrangements.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2001

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th August be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 26th September be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 26th September be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability

Lord Ashley of Stoke: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to introduce a new Disability Bill.
	My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that it is only 30 or 40 years since disabled people were treated as objects of pity and charity, denied rights and patronisingly treated as a regretful necessity.
	Since then there have been major achievements with an array of benefits, the establishment of many rights and new public attitudes towards them. Above all, there is a strong sense of the developing independence of disabled people themselves, stemming, in large part, from these advances. I regard that as of tremendous importance.
	The Government deserve great credit for the many measures they have taken to help disabled people, especially in the benefits field and in the setting up of the Disability Rights Task Force and the Disability Rights Commission. Under the chairmanship of Bert Massie, the commission has been a leading advocate of new legislation. Its parliamentary affairs manager, Agnes Fletcher, has been particularly helpful.
	The changes in both provision and attitudes brought about by these achievements are now part of the fabric of our society. But, as we begin the new century, this is the time to stand back and appraise the extent of the advances and assess what more needs to be done. Key questions to be asked are: to what extent have disabled people got genuine independence; to what extent are they free from discrimination; how different are their opportunities compared with those for non-disabled people; have they got equal chances of a job with others; and, can they be confident that they will get fair treatment by society or is it subject to chance and luck?
	In my view, the answers leave room for not one iota of doubt that a new disability Bill is necessary. The Labour manifesto's commitment in 1997 to introduce "comprehensive and enforceable" civil rights for disabled people was welcome and crucially important. But we should be clear about what that means. Comprehensive civil rights mean that all elements of living are provided for with no elements of chance. Enforcement means that disabled people get what is intended, and that, if necessary, they will get it by enforcement. To me, that means secure provision with disabled people being respected as equals with non-disabled people and having the same rights.
	How far and to what extent are those reasonable interpretations operative today? Let us take the case of employment. Protection from discrimination in jobs depends on luck for many disabled people who want to work. It can depend on the size of the firm for which they work or want to work and on whether they are public sector employees. No less than 80 per cent of all small businesses, and 7 million workers, are excluded from the current employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. That is astonishing, and there can be no serious excuse for it.
	The Government have now decided to include all firms eventually, but not until 2004. Why the wait? This excessive delay means that many disabled people are still vulnerable to discrimination until then. So, there are no comprehensive and enforceable civil rights in that regard.
	Employees in the public sector such as fire fighters and police and prison officers also do not benefit from comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. They are simply excluded from the DDA—full stop.
	Even when disabled people get jobs, there is no guarantee that they can travel to them. Non-discrimination provisions of the DDA do not apply to the means of transport. Disabled people can get on to the platform, but not on to the train. That has been called the trainspotters' charter—and with some justification, I think. Transport today is the Achilles' heel of disabled people in jobs. Some transport vehicles are covered under Part V of the DDA, which has not yet been implemented. Transport buildings fall under Part III of the Act, which expressly excludes vehicles. To compound that bizarre concoction, access to aeroplanes and ferries is not covered at all by the Act. It is a Fred Karno situation for many disabled people, in which 7 million people and 80 per cent of small firms are excluded.
	If even small links are missing in the transport chain for disabled people, it is obvious that the journey cannot be completed. When elements as major as those that I have outlined are not in place, it is out of the question. This has major implications for jobs and independence.
	Another example of the lucky dip principle is discrimination against people with HIV. Regrettably, there is discrimination against people who are diagnosed with HIV, but, incredibly, they are denied legal protection from discrimination under the provisions of the Act. It is designed especially to protect people, but, in respect of HIV sufferers, that protection comes only if and when they develop AIDS.
	Some important rights for disabled people are to be found not in the DDA, but in the Human Rights Act. They include provisions ensuring that no one should be deprived of life intentionally and that no one should be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. The first provision could affect cases in which life support systems are turned off because of very severe impairment and in which disabled people may be denied life-saving treatment because of their disability.
	As there is no commission to enforce the Human Rights Act (there should be one) powers should be given to the Disability Rights Commission to represent disabled people under the European Convention on Human Rights. After two and a half years' consideration, the Government have failed to act on that basis. Their feeble excuse that the Joint Policy Committee on Human Rights is also considering the EOC and the CRA is unconvincing. There is absolutely no reason for the excessive delay.
	Those issues and others should spur the Government to consolidate and expand anti-discrimination legislation for Britain's disabled people. No doubt some of that could be done through regulation, but rather than tinkering by making a patch here and there, we need the Government to introduce a comprehensive new disability Bill in the next Queen's Speech. They can thus set a pattern and an example that can be a beacon to all other countries.
	I repeat that this Government have a fine record on disability and they should be congratulated on all that they have done, but if they introduce this new Bill—I very much hope that it will feature in the next Queen's Speech—it will be not only a beacon for other countries, but will effectively tackle historic discrimination here and enable disabled people to live fuller and happier lives.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to have tabled this Question, and also very timely. It follows my balloted debate on 4th July, whose subject was the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is now an Act.
	In that debate I pointed out that that Bill was the first on disablement ever to have been drafted and introduced by any government. Previously, Private Member's Bills had had to suffice. Different parts of the DDA—I shall use that term to refer to the 1995 Act—have been taking effect at different times. The Act covers many times more subjects than could any Private Members' legislation. However, it did not cover all areas. For example, it did not complete what was required on transport and education. At that time, it would have taken much longer to have prepared legislation for those subjects. I am glad that the Act was not delayed in order to include them, as that would taken about five years. As a result of its introduction, many cases of discrimination in employment have been investigated since the relevant parts have taken effect.
	There have been suggestions—the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, repeated them today—that amending legislation or introducing a new Bill could improve the definitions, in particular on HIV, and give increased responsibility to public authorities for promoting equal opportunities for disabled people. That would happen on the principle, which has been accepted, that it is within the bounds of what is reasonable. I remind the House that both British and United States legislation on this subject observes the principle of reasonable accommodations. That has worked well in this country so far.
	The DDA made a huge step forward. It should be built upon now. Whether it is another Bill or subordinate legislation—statutory instruments or regulations—that is necessary, it is the Government who should initiate it. It is too difficult and uncertain an operation to be carried out by Private Members' Bills or Private Peers' Bills, even with government support.
	One asks whether the time has come for the removal of the exemptions that are written into the DDA. This is the opportunity to consider them. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has already referred to them. First, there is the exemption of small businesses. It is gradually being removed in stages and the process should be complete by 2004. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to hasten that process and to bring it forward?
	Then there is the exemption for the Armed Forces. This is a subject on which I can speak from personal experience having been severely wounded and disabled in World War II in April 1945. I spent a year and two months in hospital—St Bartholomew's—which did a marvellous job in putting me together again. On the first anniversary of VE Day in 1946, I was still an in-patient in Bart's, although later that year I was allowed to emerge on crutches.
	Partially disabled, I was allotted a task in intelligence in what was then the War Office—now, of course, it is the Ministry of Defence. I was still on crutches. I was employed there for only four months because I had been successful in the Foreign Office examination, and also successful in the Foreign Office medical examination, both of which I passed on crutches. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has heard me recall before, as I left the medical board the chairman said, "Of course, as a diplomat you will not be required to walk or stand"—which, curiously enough, was true at that time because we had only a few embassies and other missions abroad and they were all in salubrious capital cities.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, they were lying on cushions.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that for the first three years I had to work in the Foreign Office, where I worked personally with Mr Ernest Bevin, for whom I had a great admiration. Certainly I do not think that I was expected by him to lie on anything. I got to know him extremely well in the job that I was doing.
	I spent 12 years in sedentary appointments arranged by the Foreign Office—mostly in London—and then I had to leave. My surgeons would not permit me to go to distant and insalubrious places.
	In the distant past—and after a world war—the Armed Forces were able to find appropriate jobs for disabled people. I accept that it may be difficult now. The Army is much smaller and most soldiers have to be able to perform front-line duties. This has been confirmed by Field Marshals and others whom I have consulted.
	Disabled soldiers may be a liability to their comrades beside them, certainly in World War II situations of the kind that I took part in—that is to say, major offensives, usually those of Field Marshal Montgomery. It would certainly have been difficult for the advancing troops if one or some of them had been a liability to their comrades.
	I turn now to the RAF and the Navy, in which there are one or two areas where it is possible for someone who is disabled to do a job—for example, to fly an aeroplane. Of course, usually in such cases they will have trained and obtained experience before they became disabled. A very good example, of course, is Douglas Bader, whom I knew quite well. He set an extremely good example to others, but, of course, he had earned his wings and learnt to fly before he became disabled.
	I would encourage the placing of disabled people in suitable jobs—which I understand may be limited—in the Army. It is not possible for every soldier to be transferable to a front-line combat unit, and we should concentrate on those areas in the Army where someone who is not able bodied can do an office or other job.
	I have spoken about the Armed Forces because they are an important exemption at present in the DDA. This is an area with which I am familiar. Very careful consideration would have to be given along the lines that I have outlined before the Armed Forces could be removed from the Act and no longer exempted. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has to say about the Government's intentions. In general I support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.

Lord Addington: My Lords, talking about the DDA brings back memories. When we discussed it in this Chamber, I felt that we were taking the first step towards giving people real rights. It was a rather faltering step; it took a great deal of pushing to get it going. It faltered because the rights that it introduced were given out in a rather piecemeal way. They had to be fought for; we stumbled left and right; we left things out; we did not bound into the field.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, quite justifiably, that this Government have probably the best record on disability of any government. That is true. It is also true that the government before them were also the best in their turn, and probably the government before that. There has been a great deal of progress in the field of disability discrimination because of the pressure that has been applied for many years. We have become more educated.
	The last time I spoke to the noble Baroness in her position on the Front Bench, I pointed out the number of areas in which I had spoken about disability. Her department is not the only one which is favoured by my dulcet tones. The noble Baroness's department has to carry the can for many of these issues, but disability affects everything. As has been mentioned, transport is one of the glaring omissions from the original Bill.
	Rights have been introduced in a piecemeal way. Regulations have been brought in so slowly that people have forgotten about them and are now panicking. We started with the National Disability Council; then we went to the Disability Rights Commission; now the commission has just about got going and suddenly finds it has huge amounts of work. Indeed, the work it is undertaking is generating more work.
	Perhaps I may do something I rarely do and quote from a document I have received from the commission. It states:
	"The Commission believes that a Disability Bill represents the best way of ensuring proper parliamentary consideration of complex but crucial issues—spanning the definition of disability, various exemptions contained with the Disability Discrimination Act. . .a public sector duty to promote equality parallel to that contained in the Race Relations Amendment Act and rights to protection from discrimination in transport".
	That is what the commission is calling for.
	Basically, we are in a mess. Even if cannot have a new Bill, we could certainly have a consolidation Bill. That would be a challenge both for the draftsmen and for joined-up government within Whitehall. Education meets transport meets works and pensions. Those departments could come together and talk.
	The Bill itself was a good initial step but it was a product of its time. Time is now moving very fast. The Government did not really want to bring the Bill forward; they were frightened of its consequences. There were scare stories everywhere—indeed, there still are—that it would cost millions, billions, for the alterations to various buildings; business would not be able to handle it. This meant, of course, that business had such a time-scale that it has not handled it. A little bit of pain up front is often worth it in the long run.
	We have to get a coherent over-view. There are many ways of piggy-backing on other legislation. Indeed, many people consider that bringing all forms of discrimination together may be a way forward. But some people will say, "Possibly we have the same goal but we have different aims and objectives and a different client base". That is a valid argument, certainly at this time. But we have to try to bring these things together. The confusion and diversity of approach in terms of solutions holds back any consistent progress.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, cited the example of the Armed Forces. Again, in this area we must attempt to move with the times. A great many disabled people have served in the Armed Forces at times of national emergency. Over a long period dyslexic people have served quite happily in a variety of roles. That, for instance, would be covered. I apologise for referring again to dyslexia. I merely cite it as an example of how definitions will change over time. In a more technological age—during which time there has been a conviction that war can be fought like a game of "Space Invaders"—it may be possible for various branches of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to find an ongoing, continuous role.
	Certain other exemptions—for example, the police force, the Fire Service and other emergency services—should be treated in the same way. If we have a better definition of "reasonable adjustment", or something along those lines, that will make sure that we do not have absurd exemptions, as happens at present. If we have a good definition that works across the board, against which people can argue clearly, then we shall go forward.
	We should remove some of the onus on individuals to bring cases and prove them in case law. We should try to move ahead. The noble Lord's suggestion is timely. Much can be done in this area. The first point is to attempt to bring the current legislation together into a coherent whole.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by making a point about the title of the department. For a Government who regard inclusivity as a major priority, it is rather strange that when the former departments of social security and employment were amalgamated the Government did not simply opt to call it the "Department of Social Security and Employment" rather than the Department for Work and Pensions. Clearly, the expression "work and pensions" excludes quite a number of interests. It excludes, for example, both the disabled—many of whom, alas, are not in work despite all our efforts—and pensioners. The change that arose in the title is strange.
	We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for raising this issue. It is in many ways an extension of the debate that took place in July, initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell. In replying to that debate, the Minister was still under the impression that the matters that we discussed earlier today would be dealt with in a welfare Bill rather than by regulations. As the two debates are linked, perhaps I may ask the Minister which provisions mentioned in the Queen's Speech are contained in the welfare Bill. Given the priority that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, would like the Government to give to these matters concerning the disabled, if a welfare Bill is still to be presented to Parliament, is there now something of a cap for these matters to be covered?
	In her final remarks, the noble Baroness said that the proposals made in the orders that we discussed earlier could be taken up by people when they were ready. She used the words "right and ready" or some such expression. My understanding is that people will not have that opportunity. They will not go for an interview or take up a job when they are ready; they will go when the department asks them to go.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested that the existing legislation on this subject might be included in a consolidation Bill. I am not quite clear what that would achieve. I know full well, having tried in another place to make a speech on a consolidation Bill that it is the most difficult thing in the world.

Lord Addington: My Lords, merely the exercise might show us what a mess we are in.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have a nasty feeling it would continue to show the mess that we are in. Anyone who has dealt with a consolidation Bill will realise that it is only a technical exercise.
	However, the noble Lord made a good point in stressing the importance of co-ordination between different government departments. As he rightly says, a number of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in his opening remarks go across government departments. Clearly, the question of transport is relevant not only in the context of the disabled and the Department for Work and Pensions but also in the context of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is important.
	I come to this debate as a comparatively new boy. Other than on welfare Bills involving largely financial matters, I do not think that I have spoken on disability matters of the kind raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, this evening. On previous occasions they have been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, who has a great deal of expertise and interest in this area. I am sure that he will wish to speak on these matters on future occasions. I, however, come to this set of issues comparatively fresh.
	To speak more personally, I looked today at the Disability Alliance's annual review for the year 2000-2001. The alliance stresses the extraordinary success—I think that is the right description—of the UK team in the Paralympic Games in Sydney. It points out that it is engaged in dealing with these matters in relation to UK sport, formerly with Sport England. It is a long time since I was an active athlete—something like half a century—but I well remember at that time organising athletic events for the disabled. Such events have remarkable importance so far as concerns their personal outlook on life. We should do everything possible to encourage disabled people in these endeavours, whether in the Paralympics or in small local events—or, for example, in the London Marathon, where I am usually astonished at the efforts of people in wheelchairs.
	My reason for raising the point in this context—and it may possibly require legislation—is that the Disability Alliance points out that it gives advice to individual disabled athletes on the impact that lottery funding may have on their social security benefits. I have not given the Minister notice of this question. We need to consider carefully whether, if they are in receipt of lottery funding, it ought to have any impact on their social security benefits. I see that the noble Baroness is not sure. It is a point that we need to examine carefully. In the context of whether another disability Bill is necessary it is worth looking at.
	The history of these matters goes back to the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in 1970 in another place. The noble Lord has made a big contribution in this area. It continues through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 put forward by my right honourable friend Mr William Hague. Since then, there has been some disappointment regarding government progress in these matters—not least at the withdrawal of 12 charities from the Disability Benefits Forum, which I understand no longer exists. On the other hand, I pay tribute to the progress made by the Government with regard to the establishment of the Disability Rights Task Force and the Disability Rights Commission. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply on the point that he raised with regard to representation by the commission. It is clearly doing a great deal of work in representing individuals at tribunals but not in relation to the Human Rights Act. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that point.
	Outside organisations have raised a number of issues. There was disappointment that the response to points on transport has been that the Government are consulting. The Minister mentioned that they were consulting on the issue in July. Perhaps she could bring us up-to-date on progress and, more particularly, whether definitions of disability—for example, as regards cancer, or whatever it may be—are required.
	The Minister suggested that blind people were automatically passported through the system. That seems in conflict with representations that I have received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind which believes that those individuals originally recognised as being blind need to go through a review every so often. Definition is important. On extensions to small firms, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out that 2004 seems a fairly lengthy period of adjustment for companies to provide for those who have disabilities at work.
	It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could summarise the further steps which could be taken without legislation; those which could be taken through secondary legislation; and, finally, what plans the Government have for those areas which can be provided for only by primary legislation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall do my best. As usual, the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley for providing the opportunity to debate this matter. Legislating to strengthen and improve the rights of disabled people is of prime importance. As noble Lords have acknowledged today, and without wishing to sound complacent, we have a record which is second to none of any country of which I am aware, with the possible exception of American civil rights legislation which has developed to some extent along a slightly different path.
	We have already established a Disability Rights Commission. That is a significant step and one which was omitted from the Disability Discrimination Act. And we have started to put right other major omissions from the Disability Discrimination Act such as legislating in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to bring within the scope of the DDA discrimination in the provision of education.
	When talking about such steps, it may be appropriate to respond as far as I can to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about consolidation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Since the DDA was introduced in 1995 it has been amended significantly by only one other Act—the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Therefore it is too early to think about consolidating those two Bills.
	We need, for example, to take forward our obligations under Article 13 relating to the employment directive. The noble Lord perhaps was suggesting that we seek to consolidate the interface with other departments—the Department of Health, and so on. Other legislation deals with a variety of issues which do not turn on whether discrimination has occurred. For example, the primary matter for the health service may be the extent of disability rather than discrimination and, therefore, the support which may need to be given as of right by local authorities. I do not think that it is appropriate to try to consolidate to that extent. However, I am sure the noble Lord is right that over the years consolidation will be needed. But at the end of the day employers and disabled people want helpful advice and guidance from the local offices—the CAB and such organisations—rather than legislation, which most of them will not read.
	The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 deals with education. In addition, from October 2004 the final phase of Part III of the DDA—it will require reasonable adjustments to physical features of premises where access is impossible or unreasonably difficult—will come into force. That will be supported by a revised code of practice which will be issued early next year.
	These are important changes to the current framework but, on their own, they are not sufficient to meet our 1997 manifesto commitment to support comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. The language used today about the need to keep building on it is right. That is why we established an independent Disability Rights Task Force to advise us on how best to take forward our overall commitment to civil rights. In its 1999 report, From Exclusion to Inclusion, the task force made 156 wide-ranging recommendations. Some required the Government and other public bodies to make changes to the way in which administrative or other procedures are operated. Others required legislative action such as bringing education within the scope of the DDA; and, as I have mentioned, we have done that.
	Towards Inclusion was our response to the task force. It was published on 5th March of this year and reports the progress we have made in a number of areas such as the provision of services, transport, the environment and housing, participation in public life, local government, health and social services.
	Towards Inclusion—our response—also made specific proposals to legislate to help tackle social exclusion and address inequality in employment and access to goods and services which many disabled people still face. Some of the major proposals have been highlighted today. They included the ending of the exemption of small firms from the DDA's employment provisions in 2004; bringing within the scope of the DDA more occupations such as police officers, fire fighters, prison officers and barristers in chambers; introducing a new duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people; and extending the scope of the DDA's access provisions to functions carried out by public bodies that are currently excluded because they are not "services" within the terms of the DDA—for example, custodial matters undertaken by the police.
	These proposals will bring within the scope of the DDA a further 600,000 disabled workers and around 7 million employees. They will require public bodies to look proactively at promoting equality of opportunity in their employment policies and services to the public. And they will ensure that a wider range of functions carried out by public bodies are subject to anti-discrimination legislation.
	My noble friend pressed me on one specific point and was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He asked our views about discrimination against people diagnosed with HIV who are, therefore, denied legal protection. My noble friend will know that people with symptomatic HIV are also covered by the DDA. He also raised the question of exemption from Part III for transport operators—that is, the right of access to goods, facilities, services and premises. I was shocked when a friend in a wheelchair, known to my noble friend and myself, was refused a meal on a train. He was told by the person involved that he was not obliged to serve him. I thought that that was quite shocking.
	I repeat that we are committed to ending this exemption. We are consulting in the new year on how best this can be done. I hope that that will be good news for my noble friend and that we can bring forward our proposals as expeditiously as we can given the consultation in which we must clearly engage.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, does that involve primary legislation?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am assured that it probably does. I should like to write to the noble Lord and to my noble friend. I have been struck by the degree to which quite significant improvements can be made by changes in regulation as opposed to legislation. I need to follow up in greater detail the interaction with that and the Article 13 directive. I am told that it will require primary legislation but I should like to see how much could still be done within our existing regulatory powers. If that would be helpful to the noble Lord, I should be happy to share that information with him.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, indeed, that would be most helpful and I should be most grateful if that could be done. If it requires primary legislation, will we still have a welfare Bill and could it be included in that?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that an Employment Bill has been introduced in the Commons today and some of our welfare reform proposals will be included in that. But I cannot at this stage help the noble Lord further. I do not think, given the timetable of consultation whereby we are committed to consulting in the New Year, that any legislative proposals could possibly be ready until next autumn. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the timing he suggested is not appropriate.
	As regards the Article 13 directive which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for reasons I may understand, pressed me on, we have signed up to the European Employment Directive made under Article 13 of the EC Treaty. This will ensure that all member states protect disabled people against discrimination in employment and training. In the UK we already have such legislation though it needs some further changes, as I have said.
	It is a unique and commendable achievement that the Disability Rights Task Force was able to pre-empt a great many of the directive's provisions. This helped us during negotiations and ensured that those aspects of the UK's approach which work so well—such as reasonable adjustments—could be retained.
	I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and to my noble friend that the Government intend to consult on the requirements of the directive within the next three months. Of course, this debate is concerned about whether or nor there will be a disability Bill to implement the Government's proposals. Clearly, it would be advantageous—I do not challenge that for a moment—to take forward our disability commitments, both those arising from Towards inclusion—our response to the task force—and anything further from the Article 13 directive, in a disability Bill. This would allow us to deal with everything we want to do in a single piece of legislation.
	However, your Lordships will absolutely understand all of the caveats I am now going to make as some of your Lordships have been in a similar position of being under pressure of legislative time. The legislative timetable is always heavy. It is particularly so at the moment. I say that in all sincerity given the number of anti-terrorism Bills that we shall now have to introduce into the legislative programme. That makes the legislative programme even heavier than is normally the case. We cannot guarantee a legislative slot either now or in the near future for those reasons. Noble Lords will appreciate that that is not within my gift, nor that of my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People or even, I dare say, of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, even for measures to which we attach a high priority. The issue is not policy but parliamentary time. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot pre-empt that decision which will be taken considerably later, however sympathetic I may personally be to many of the proposals put forward today. However, noble Lords will be aware—

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend has been helpful in the debate but is she now saying that disability will have a low priority, or is she saying that the Government will find other means of pursuing these issues? Her comments are a little disturbing. I acknowledge the point about terrorism. Obviously, the anti-terrorism Bills take priority.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not saying either of those two things. I shall talk about the second matter in just a moment; that is, what can be achieved without legislation. I say simply that no one—apart possibly from the Prime Minister who is never "off message"—can predict or state at this stage what may be in the Queen's Speech. I am absolutely not saying what is or is not high priority, medium priority or low priority. I am absolutely not saying that disability is a low priority and, say, housing or health are high priority by comparison. What I am saying is that my noble friend will understand that security measures will always take a fast track. But that aside, I say nothing beyond the fact that no one can predict or make commitments about what will be in the legislative programme or the Queen's Speech any more than they can predict or guarantee what will be in the Budget. I say nothing more nor less. I hope that my noble friend will not seek to read anything beyond absolutely that in my comments today.
	However, I may be able to take the House a little further forward as regards what we can do even in the mean time and even without a disability Bill. This is what we are considering. This Government are alert to the needs of disabled people and respect their desire to lead independent lives as equal members of society. It is a Government who support their right to be protected.
	Under EC legislation we are able to introduce changes required by an instrument of the European Union by regulations. So, even if a Bill were not forthcoming—I am absolutely not saying that it will or will not be forthcoming—we could meet our commitment to legislate to end the small employer exemption in 2004. We could also ensure that the occupations and employment currently exempted from the scope of the DDA, such as the police and fire-fighters, are ended. I cannot, and will not, make such a commitment as regards the Armed Forces. The Government's position on that is that it is for the MoD to determine what is in the best interests of national security. Your Lordships will understand that there is a debate about that. One of our difficulties is that many of the jobs which were traditionally available to disabled members of the Armed Forces have now gone out to civilian staff, which limits the capacity to make reasonable adjustments for members of staff. However, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ashley will understand that, as will the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, I believe that the ending of the exemptions for the police and fire-fighters—which, after all, involve considerable numbers of the civilian population—will be a welcome and rewarding change. As I say, we can achieve that change without primary legislation.
	The DDA is significant legislation which provides significant protections but it is neither comprehensive at the moment nor fully enforceable. We have addressed, and continue to address, the Act's omissions. We are moving forward both domestically and in Europe to ensure that disabled people have in place the protection that has been afforded to other people in our society for the past 30 years. It is right that we press ahead with urgency but we also need to create lasting and effective legislation. And to make that legislation deliver we have to take people with us which is why the consultation process is an educative process as well as everything else. We shall do what is needed as soon as we can. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel that the debate tonight has been worthwhile.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes before seven o'clock.